Skip to main content

Full text of "'Athēnaíōn politeía [romanized form] Aristotle on the constitution of Athens"

See other formats


Cornell University 

The original of this book is in 
the Cornell University Library. 

There are no known copyright restrictions in 
the United States on the use of the text. 














AND BY Longmans and Co., 39 Paternoster Row 

B. QuARiTCH, 15 Piccadilly; Asher and Co., 13 Bedford Street, Covent Garden 

Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner and Co., 57 Ludgate Hill, London 

ALSO BY Henry Frowde, Clarendon Press Depot, Oxford 



The 'AdrjvaCcDv HoXiTeCa, now for the first time given 
to the world from the unique text in the British 
Museum Papyrus CXXXI., has been transcribed and 
edited by Mr. F. G. Kenyon, Assistant in this De- 
partment. Mr. Kenyon's transcript has been again 
collated with the original by Mr. G. F. Warner, 
Assistant-Keeper of MSS. ; and the sheets have also 
been read by Mr. E. Maunde Thompson, the Principal 
Librarian, by Mr. Warner, and by myself. 

An Autotype Facsimile of the whole of the text of 
the IIoXtTeia, together with a specimen-plate of the 
writing on the redo of the papyrus, is published in a 
separate volume. 


Keeper of MSS. 

British Museum,- 

^isi December, 1890. 


When Neumann in 1837 edited the Fragments of the 
IToXtreiai of Aristotle he lamented, not unnaturally, ' eheu 
amissum est in sempiternum praeclarum opus, nisi e 
palimpsestis quibusdam fortasse eruatur.' The field which 
now shows the greatest promise of restoring to us some of 
the lost works of antiquity had then hardly been opened 
up at all, and there was little sign that Egypt might still 
return to the modern world some of the treasures which 
were committed to her by the ancient. Since that date 
discoveries of no little value have been made among the 
papyri which have from time to time been brought to 
Europe and are now preserved in the great libraries of 
England and the Continent. Several papyrus MSS. of 
parts of the Iliad, dating from the first century before the 
Christian era to the fourth or fifth after it, are now known 
to the world, which, though they have not affected the text 
of Homer in any appreciable degree, are yet of interest as 
carrying back the tradition of it for many centuries before 
the earliest MS. that was previously known. Fragments 
of Thucydides, Plato, Euripides, Isocrates, Demosthenes, 
and other classical authors have been discovered, which, 
while not of any great importance in themselves, were 
hopeful signs of the discoveries which might be expected 
in the future. More than this, there have been one or two 
finds of works hitherto completely lost, and these are of 


course the great treasures of the papyrus literature. They 
include a mutilated fragment of Alcman, now at Paris 
(quoted in Mahafify's Greek Literature, vol. I. p. 172), and 
several orations of Hyperides, all of which (with the 
exception of one lately reported by M. Revillout to be in 
the Biblioth^que Nationale of Paris) are preserved in the 
British Museum \ The British Museum has now the 
satisfaction of publishing the latest and most important 
addition to the extant stock of classical Greek literature, 
the often-quoted but hitherto lost 'AOrjvaiaiv UoXireCa of 

None of the lost works of Aristotle is so much quoted 
by the writers of the early centuries of the Christian era as 
the DoXtTeiat, which, containing as it did a summary of the 
political constitutions of a hundred and fifty-eight states of 
all kinds, was a storehouse of historical information for 
subsequent ages. The portion relating to Athens, together 
with those relating to Corinth and Pellene, may possibly 
(though this is doubtful) have been in the library of Cicero 
{ad Att. II. 2) ; it is quoted by Plutarch in the first century 
of the Christian era ; it was largely used by Pollux in the 
second ; its name occurs in a catalogue of a library in the 
third (Ziindel in Rhein. Mus. 1866, p. 432); in the fourth 
it is repeatedly cited by Harpocration ; in the sixth we 
know, on the evidence of Photius, that it was used by the 

' To the discoveries here mentioned should now be added the very interesting 
fragments of Plato and Euripides which have been found by Professors Sayce and 
Mahaffy among the papyri brought from Egypt by Mr. Flinders Petrie. Apart 
from the fact that they include a portion of the lost Antiope of Euripides, they 
are considerably the earliest classical MSS. at present known to ns, dating 
(according to the Professors' letters in the Academy of Oct. nth, and the 
Athenaeum of Oct. 26th and Dec. 6th, 1890) from the third century B.C. 
Further, the British Museum has recently acquired several classical papyri, 
among which, in addition to some interesting early fragments of Homer, 
Demosthenes, and Isocrates, is the conclusion of a speech which may perhaps 
be ascribed to Hyperides, and also several of the lost poems of the iambo- 
grapher Herodas. These will be published shortly. 


rhetorician Sopater ^. On the other hand Photius himself, 
three centuries afterwards, does not seem to have known 
the work otherwise than in quotations by earlier writers; 
and any references to it in grammarians and compilers of 
later date are probably made at second hand. Between 
the sixth and the ninth century it disappeared and was 
seen no more until in this nineteenth century it has once 
more been brought to light. The treatise on Athens was 
naturally the part which was of most interest to the 
scholars of the Greek world after the date of Aristotle, 
which was most frequently quoted in their works, and 
which was no doubt most frequently copied ; and it is 
therefore not surprising that this, rather than any other 
portion of the work, should have been preserved from the 
library of an Egyptian scholar of one of the early centuries 
of the Christian era. Tastes will differ as to whether we 
could have wished some other lost work of Greek literature 
to have been returned to us rather than this. Some might 
have preferred an addition to our stock of poetry, in a new 
tragedy of Aeschylus or of Euripides, to have recovered 
another play of Aristophanes or to have broken fresh 
ground with a specimen of the New Comedy of Menander. 
Others might wish that, if the discovery were to be histor- 
ical, it might be an Ephorus by which we might check the 
accuracy of Plutarch, or a Theopompus to throw light on 
the obscure details of the period of Alexander. But if it 
were to be an additional authority on the period which we 
already know comparatively well, but in which much still 
remains in obscurity and open to conjecture, no work could 
be named of equal value and authority with Aristotle's 
Constitutional History of Athens. 

' Heitz and Rose believe all these quotations from Aristotle to be taken at 
second hand from the compilations of Didymus or other early writers, and that 
the work of Aristotle was lost at a very early date. As we now know that the 
latter was not the case, their arguments for the most part fall to the ground. 


A short description of the MS. is necessary, in order to 
understand the state in which the text has come down to 
us. It is imperfect at the beginning; but this appears 
to be due to the first chapters never having been written 
(probably because the MS. from which this was copied was 
imperfect or illegible in that part), and not to the subsequent 
loss of any part of the papyrus ; for a blank space has been 
left before the first column of writing, which was no doubt 
intended to receive the beginning of the work. The latter 
portion of the MS. has, however, suffered severely ; but 
the fortunate fact that another document (of which more 
is said below) is written on the other side of the papyrus 
enables us to estimate with tolerable accuracy the extent 
of the mutilation. There are four separate lengths of 
papyrus, which probably were originally distinct rolls. 
The first of these is complete, or nearly so (the only doubt 
being as to whether a larger space was left blank to receive 
the commencement of the work than now remains), and 
measured, when acquired by the Museum, 7 ft. 2^ in. in 
length. It has since been divided, for convenience of 
mounting, into two pieces measuring 4 ft. ai in. and 3 ft. 
respectively. This roll contains eleven broad columns of 
writing ; the later ones are in good condition, but the 
earlier ones are badly rubbed and often very difificult to 
decipher. The second roll measures 5 ft. 5^ in., and 
contains thirteen much narrower columns, in fairly good 
condition throughout. The third measures 3 ft., and 
contains six broad columns, which have been put together 
from a .large number of fragments ; but one of these is 
very imperfect, and there are several other small lacunas 
in this part of the papyrus. The fourth roll is purely 
fragmentary ; its original length may be estimated, partly 
by the help of the writing on the other side of the papyrus, 
at 3 ft., but no column except the last remains perfect, and 
the writing is miserably defaced and in many places quite 


illegible 1. It is possible that the third and fourth lengths 
were formerly united in a single roll, which would have 
been of about the same size as the other two ; but it is 
certain that they were originally written on separate pieces 
of papyrus, which must, on this supposition, have been 
artificially joined together. The height of the papyrus is 
throughout about ii inches, except in the fourth roll, 
which is at present rather less than lo in. ; and this is 
another reason against supposing that it was ever attached 
to the third. 

The text is written in four hands. The first is a small 
semi-cursive hand, employing a large number of ab- 
breviations of common syllables, such as ttjv, rrjs, -nepi, km 
(see list at end of Introduction). The writing is not that 
of a professional scribe, but is on the whole very correct 
and easy to read wherever the papyrus has not been badly 
rubbed. This hand includes the first twelve columns^, 
which vary in width from 4% to 11 inches, and contain 
from forty-three to forty-eight lines of close writing. The 
second hand is uncial of fair size, written in a plain but not 
very graceful style, and with habitual mis-spellings and 
mistakes which show that the writer was not a scholar nor 
a well-educated person. Many of the mistakes are corrected 
in the first hand, which suggests that the writer of that 
hand was a scholar who desired a copy of Aristotle's work 
for his own library, while the writer of the second was a 

' It should perhaps be added that, since the photographs of these fragments 
were taken (Plates 19 to 21 of the volume of facsimiles), it has been foimd 
possible to arrange them more accurately in order, owing to the fact that the 
writing on the other side of the papyrus is in better preservation ; and one 
fragment (that in the top left-hand corner of Plate 19) has since found a place 
in another part of the papyrus. 

^ The sequence of these columns is broken after the middle of the tenth, by 
a column and a half of writing in the reverse direction, which had evidently 
been inscribed on the papyrus before the Aristotle, but was struck out when 
the sheet was required for the latter. The hand is not the same as that of the 
Aristotle, but is apparently of the same date. For a description of its contents 
see note on ch. 25. 


slave or professional scribe employed by him to complete 
the transcript. Columns thirteen to twenty are written in 
this hand ; they are much narrower than the preceding 
columns, measuring only 3 to 4^ inches in breadth and 
containing forty-four to iifty-one lines. In the third hand 
are written half the twentieth column and columns twenty- 
one to twenty-four, together with the much damaged 
fragments of the concluding part of the MS. This hand is 
semi-cursive, but much larger and more straggling than the 
first hand. The fourth hand, in which are written the six 
columns of which the third roll consists, closely resembles 
the first, and employs many of the same abbreviations', but 
the strokes are somewhat finer and more upright and some 
of the letters are differently formed. 

The condition of the writing varies considerably in 
different places. The earlier columns are badly rubbed, 
especially at the places where the roll was folded, and the 
writing is often either absolutely illegible or discernible 
only with great difficulty. In some cases, however, where 
the letters are not in themselves legible there are yet 
sufficient traces to verify or to condemn a conjectural 
restoration of the text. This is the case with many 
passages which have been restored in the printed text, 
and in some which still await conjectural emendation. 
Except in these earlier columns the writing is generally 
in fair condition. In the greater part of the MS. holes in 
the papyrus are rare; but the six columns of the third roll 
have been put together, as has been already said, out of 
many different fragments, and large gaps still remain, in 
one place amounting to a considerable part of a column, 
in which case restoration is naturally for the most part 
impossible. The text, apart from difficulties of decipher- 
ment, is in good condition and requires little emendation, 
beyond the correction of the somewhat uncultured spelling 
of the second and third hands. 


It remains to estimate the date of the MS. The palaeo- 
graphy of the first centuries of the Christian era is still so 
uncertain, owing to the want of dated materials, that it 
would be difficult to fix it with any accuracy by the 
writing alone. Fortunately there are other means at hand. 
The text of Aristotle is written on the reverse side^ of the 
papyrus, and on the recto are accounts of receipts and ex- 
penditure which are dated in the eleventh year of Vespasian, 
of which a specimen is given with the facsimile of the 
IToAtT-eia (Plate aa)^. The dating of this document pre- 
sents some points of interest. The heading at the 
beginning of it (which is to be found on the, second of the 
pieces into which the first roll of papyrus is now divided, 
its text running in the contrary direction to that of the 
Aristotle) is as follows : Erous cDSexarou avTOKparopos Kaia-apos 
Ovecnraaiavov 2e/3aoToi; apyvpiKos \oyos Ewtju.a)(ou UoXvbevKovs 
\y]lJ.p.aTu>v Kai avrjXconaTMV tu)v bi fp-ov Aibvixov Aanatriov X^ipi- 
^ofxevwv, a>v eivai krjp.pL' rot) /xjjyoy Se^acrrov. The names of 
the months for which the accounts are given succeed 
one another in the following order, 2e/3aoTou, ^aa>cf>i, 
Neou ^fjSacTTOV, Xotax, Tu^t, Mexeip, ^afMevaiO, <i>apiJ.ov6i, 
Uaxoov. The remarkable feature here is the occurrence 
of the names 2e/3aoTos and Ne'oj 2ej8acrro'y in the place of 
Thouth and Athur respectively. The former does not seem 
to have been observed elsewhere in Egyptian documents ; 
but one of the Archduke Rainer's Papyri is dated jxrivos 
^e^aoTov AOvp T7fp.TrTr] (Pap. No. 1717, cf. Mittheilungen 
aus der Sammlung der Papyrus Erzherzog Rainer, pt. II. 
p. 16, 1887). The name Se/Saoroy is of course equivalent 
to August ; but it is noticeable that it was given in Egypt 

1 /. e. that side on which the fibres of the papyras are laid perpendicularly 
{cf. Wilcken's article Recto oder Verso, in Hermes, Vol. XXII). 

' The text of these accounts, which are those of the bailiff of a private 
estate, will be printed in the Catalogue of Greek Papyri in the British 
Museum, which is now passing through the press. 


to the month Thouth, which began on Aug. 29th, rather 
than to Mesore, which occupied the greater part of the 
Roman month of August. Athur was no doubt re-named 
in honour of Vespasian, who was born in that month. As 
to the year named, Vespasian was proclaimed emperor at 
Alexandria in July, 69 A.D. The Egyptian year began 
with Thouth, and according to the usual mode of dating in 
that country his second year would be reckoned to begin 
with the Thouth next following his proclamation, i.e. at 
the end of August in the same year 69 A.D. His eleventh 
year would therefore be that which began in August of 
78 A.D. ; and in the following June he died. The entries 
of the present document extend to the preceding month, 
Pachon in the Egyptian calendar beginning on April a6th. 
The writing on the recto of the papyrus consequently 
belongs to 78-79 A. D.^ We cannot tell how soon afterwards 
the verso was used for receiving the text of Aristotle, but 
on the one hand it is not likely to have been so used while 
the accounts on the recto were still valuable, and on the 
other the papyrus is not likely to have continued unused 
and undestroyed for very many years after the accounts 
had ceased to be of interest. Moreover some of the most 
remarkable forms of letters and abbreviations which occur 
in the Aristotle are also found in the accounts. The date 
of the Aristotle may therefore be fixed with some certainty 
at the end of the first century of our era or, at latest, the 
beginning of the second. 

To pass on to the contents of the MS. The first thing 
necessary is to prove that this work is actually the lost 

■ It may be noted that writing of a very similar character is found in other 
papyri of which the date has hitherto been a matter of pure conjecture {e. g. 
Papyri XCIX, CIX, and CXIX in the British Museum), but which may now 
be safely assigned to some part of the second century. Another British Museum 
papyrus (CXXV recto), which cannot be earlier than the middle of the fourth 
century, shows how far this style of writing had degenerated by that time. 


'A6rivaL0}v TJo^LTeia of Aristotle. This is of course done 
by means of the extant fragments of that work. Quota- 
tions from it are frequent in the grammarians, especially 
in Harpocration, to whom most of the fragments in which 
the work is specifically named are due. The last edition 
of Rose's collection {Aristotelis qui ferebantur librorum 
Fragmenta, Lipsiae, i8S6) contains ninety-one fragments 
which are ascribed, with more or less certainty, to the 'A^tj- 
vaiuiv YloXiTila, in fifty-eight of which the work is referred 
to by name. Of these fifty-eight, fifty-five occur in the 
MS. now before us ; one (No. 347-') belongs to the beginning 
of the book, which is wanting in the MS. ; one (No. 423) 
belongs to the latter portion of it, which is imperfect ; while 
one alone (No. 407) differs distinctly from a passage on the 
same subject occurring in the text. Of the thirty-three 
fragments in which the work is not named, though in most 
of them Aristotle is referred to as the author, twenty-three 
occur in our MS. ; four (Nos. 343, 344, 346, 348) come from 
the lost beginning, though as to at least one of them (No. 
344) it may be doubted whether it belongs to this work at 
all ; four (Nos. 354, 361, 364, 376) probably do not belong 
to this work, being merely incidental references which 
might occur by way of illustration in any other writing 
as well as in a professedly historical one; one (No. 416) 
belongs to the mutilated section on the law-courts, if it is 
from this work at all ; while one (No. 358) is either a mis- 
quotation of a passage in the MS. or a reference to some 
other writing of Aristotle's. Thus of the total number of 

^ The references for the fragments are to the numbers given in Rose's 
collection in the fifth vol. of the Berlin Academy edition of Aristotle, published 
in 1870, as it is to these numbers that reference is generally made in the 
lexicons and elsewhere. But for the benefit of those who use the last edition of 
Rose (in the Bibliotheca Teubneriana, 1886) it may be mentioned that Nos. 
381-412 in the 1886 ed. correspond to 343-374 in the 1870 ed. ; 414-428 to 
375-389; and 430-471 to 390-431 ; while Nos. 413 and 429 of the 1886 ed. 
are jiot given in the 1870 edition. 


ninety-one fragments (of which eighty-five or eighty-six 
are probably genuine references to this work), seventy- 
eight are found in the MS. in its present condition, and all 
the rest, with two possible exceptions, are satisfactorily 
accounted for. It may be added that the passages dis- 
covered on some papyrus fragments at Berlin by Blass and 
identified as portions of the 'AOrjvaiajv rioAireia by Bergk 
(see Hermes, XV. 366, Rhein. Mus. XXXVI. 87, Berl. 
Akad. Abhandl. 1885) are found in this MS., though Rose 
disputed the accuracy of Bergk's identification [Aristotelis 
Fragmenta, ed. 1886, pp. 260, 270). References are given 
in the notes to the fragments as they occur in the MS., and 
those which do not so occur are added in an Appendix. 

It may therefore be taken for certain that we have here 
the work which was known and cited in antiquity as y\ t&v 
'Adrjpaiuiv UoXiTda. Whether it is a genuine work of 
Aristotle's is another question. The subject of the Aris- 
totelian canon is a difficult one, and must be left to those 
who are specialists in it ; but the following facts are clear 
in relation to the present treatise. The noAireiai, of which 
this was the most important section, is included in the lists 
of Aristotle's works given by Diogenes Laertius, Hesychius, 
and Ptolemy (the latter being known only in an Arabic 
version). It is true that Valentine Rose, whose thorough 
study of the remains of Aristotle is indisputable, considers 
the works named in those lists to be composed not by 
Aristotle but by obscurer members of the Peripatetic 
school {Aristoteles Pseudepigraphus, 1 863) ; but this ex- 
treme view, which is in itself improbable, is rejected by 
Heitz [Die verlorenen Schriften des Aristoteles, 1 865), Grote, 
and most other competent critics. No doubt several 
spurious treatises may be included in the lists, but there 
is no sufficient ground for rejecting them in the main ; 
and the position of the TloXireiai is stronger than that of 
most of the doubtful works. From internal evidence it is 


certain that it must have been composed before 307 B.C., 
for the author in describing the constitution of Athens in 
his own day speaks always of ten tribes, which number 
was increased to twelve in the year just mentioned. On 
the other hand the date 329 B.C. is incidentally referred to 
in ch. 54, and in speaking of the two sacred triremes 
in ch. 61 the name Ammonias is used in place of the 
Salaminia. This change of name (see note ad loc.) must 
have been made during the reign of Alexander, who 
claimed to be the son of Ammon, and out of respect 
for whom offerings were no doubt sent to the temple of 
Ammon in Egypt. This work was therefore written, or at 
least revised, at the earliest in the last seven years of 
Aristotle's life, and at the latest in the fifteen years after 
his death. We know further from a quotation in Polybius 
that Timaeus, who flourished about the middle of the third 
century B.C., or only two generations after Aristotle him- 
self, referred to the noAtTeiot, and referred to it as Aristotle's 
(cf. Rose, Frag. 504). It is perhaps dangerous to use any 
argument from style, owing to the doubts which exist as to 
the manner of composition of the works of Aristotle as 
they have come down to us ; but the style of this treatise 
is in sufficient accordance with that of Aristotle as we 
know him elsewhere, and supports the belief that it is 
a genuine work of his. Whether the mention of Tmv 
(Tvvr]yiJ.iva>v Ttoknei&v at the end of the Ethics is an explicit 
reference to the UoXiTeiai, and whether the latter was then 
in process of compilation, it would take too much space to 
discuss here; but one would naturally suppose that it is 
such a reference, and that the work in question was then 
either completed or in course of being completed. In any 
case it may be taken as established that the present work 
is that which is freely quoted and referred to in ancient 
times as Aristotle's ; that it certainly was composed either 
in his life-time or a very few years afterwards ; and that 



the evidence, internal and external, tends strongly to show 
that Aristotle himself was its author. Under these circum- 
stances the burden of proof lies on those who would dispute 
its genuineness. 

One word should be said as to certain divisions which 
appear in the MS. At the head of the first and twelfth 
columns respectively the letters a and ^ have been written, 
while above the twenty-fifth column are the words y tojxos. 
At first sight it might appear that these letters indicate 
sections into which the treatise was originally divided. 
This, however, is not the case. In the first place the letters 
in question are not in the original hand of the MS. Further, 
they correspond to no rational divisions in the subject. 
The first stands over the first column of the MS., but that 
column does not contain the beginning of the work, which 
is wanting. The second and third both occur in the middle 
of a subject, in the one case the constitution of the Four 
Hundred, in the other the duties of the jBovXri. Again, 
in no citation of the treatise in any ancient author is there 
any indication of its having been divided into sections. 
One manuscript of Harpocration does indeed read iv rjj 
a' 'AOrivaiwv TroAireta {Frag. 378), but even if the reading is 
correct it is only on a level with kv rfj 'I6aKr]a-l(ov voXireia 
/x/3' in Photius {Frag. 466), implying that the Athenian 
constitution stood first in Aristotle's list of states, while 
that of Ithaca was forty-second. The purpose of the 
letters in the MS. is quite different. In each case they 
stand at the beginning of one of the rolls of papyrus of 
which the whole MS. is composed, and there is no doubt 
that they are simply intended to indicate the order in 
which these rolls follow one another. Probably the person 
who added them (or rather the first two of them, since the 
third is in a different hand) did not observe that the 
beginning of the work is wanting, when he wrote the first 
of them above the first column of the MS., taking no notice 


of the blank space that precedes it, which was no doubt 
intended to receive the missing portion of the work ; but 
this might easily be the case, as this same blank space 
naturally gives the column which follows it the appearance 
of being the beginning of a work. As there is no trace of 
writing on this blank space, it may be taken for certain 
that the beginning was, for some reason or another, never 
written, and the MS. consequently begins with an in- 
complete sentence. 

The subject of the treatise is the Constitutional History 
of Athens, and it falls into two sections. The first, which 
is the most interesting, contains a historical account of the 
development of the constitution from the earliest times to 
the re-establishment of the democracy after the expulsion 
of the Thirty Tyrants. This section is complete, with the 
exception of the beginning. The second is a detailed 
description of the various official bodies and persons in 
the state in the writer's own day. Much of this is lost, 
including the greater part of the account of the procedure 
in the law-courts ; but the loss is not so much to be 
regretted, as the whole of this section of Aristotle's work 
has been very freely used by the later grammarians, 
especially Pollux, in the eighth book of his Onomasticon 
and Harpocration in his Lexicon of the Ten Orators. The 
historical section, on the other hand, throws fresh light upon 
many parts of the history of Athens, in regard to both 
the early legislation before the Persian wars and the period 
between the Persian and Peloponnesian wars which is only 
briefly touched on by Thucydides. So many assumptions 
which have been confidently made on the strength of the 
previously existing evidence are now shown to be un- 
founded, that it is impossible to be dogmatic as to the 
conclusions to be drawn from the fresh material now 
submitted to the historian, and if phrases like 'it is 
probable,' 'perhaps,' 'it seems likely,' do not occur in 

b % 


every line of this Introduction, it is not from any want of 
perception of the uncertain character of some of the con- 
clusions which are arrived at ; but it is necessary to make 
the attempt to show in what respects our conception of the 
course of Athenian history is changed by the re-appearance 
of the testimony of Aristotle. In the notes the separate 
points are dealt with as they arise, the object being to 
bring the narrative of Aristotle into relation with those of 
Herodotus, Thucydides, and Plutarch ; but a short sketch 
of the history 'of^ Athens from the new standpoint may 
serve to show how far the traditional views of the chief 
crises in that history have been modified. The main out- 
lines remain the same, but the details are in some cases 
altered and in others made more definite. 

The beginning of the work, as has been said before, is 
lost. The MS. opens with the conclusion of the narrative 
of the conspiracy of Cylon and of its consequences in the 
way of the expulsion of the Alcmaeonidae and the puri- 
fication of the city by Epimenides of Crete. The direct 
narrative of the period of the kings is therefore wanting ; 
but a summary of the constitution as it existed before the 
reforms of Draco throws some light on the earlier history 
of Athens. This is especially the case with the period 
known as the rule of the Medontidae. On the death of 
Codrus, as has been universally agreed, some modification 
took place in the position of the kingship. The house of 
Codrus remained upon the throne, and its representatives 
governed for life, and the title of king (contrary to the 
popular tradition) continued to be given to them; but 
their power was modified in various ways. In the first 
place it is probable that the king was elective. The 
choice was indeed confined to the kingly house of the 
Medontidae; but the Eupatrid aristocracy, through its 
organ the Areopagus, selected the member of it who 
should represent the rest during his life. Further, with 


the king two other officers of considerable importance were 
associated, the Polemarch and the Archon. Of these the 
Polemarch was the successor of the commander-in-chief 
who, from the time of the legendary Ion, had been 
associated with the more unwarlike kings ; but the Archon 
was a new creation at the accession of either Medon or 
Acastus. The duties of the Archon are undefined, but it 
is clear that these two magistrates formed some check on 
the autocratic government of the kings. Meanwhile the 
Areopagus, which had at first no doubt been a body of 
advisers nominated by the king from the families of the 
aristocracy, was growing to be the chief power in the state. 
This became still more the case when, in 753 B. c, the life- 
magistracy was abolished, and the Archon was elevated to 
the titular headship of the state, with a limit of ten years 
to his government, the king being relegated to the second 
place in rank. The first four decennial archons were 
elected from the house of the Medontidae, and then the 
office was thrown open to all members of the Eupatrid 
aristocracy. The final fall of government by a single 
ruler took place thirty years later, in 683 B.C., when the 
archonship was made annual, and six additional archons, 
with the name of Thesmothetae, were associated with the - 
three already existing magistrates. . 

With this change the power of the Areopagus reached 
its height. It was now the one permanent body in the 
state. It elected the archons and other magistrates, and 
all who had served the former office became members of it 
after their year of government, — a method of recruiting its 
numbers which was no doubt adopted when there ceased 
to be a single ruler with sufficient authority and position to 
nominate new members as vacancies occurred. It thus 
represented the whole official experience and the official 
traditions of the state, and it is not surprising that it 
assumed a supreme control over the whole administration 


and the general welfare of the country, imposing fines, 
amending and enforcing laws, directing finance, and no 
doubt guiding foreign policy. The Ecclesia, if it existed 
at all at this time, had certainly no power nor practical 
influence on affairs. The position of the Areopagus was 
analogous to that of the Roman senate during the greater 
part of the duration of the republic, and it owed its 
strength to the same causes. 

Meanwhile, as at Rome, so at Athens, economical phe- 
nomena were tending to an upheaval of the whole fabric 
of state. The cultivators of the land, unable to stand the 
pressure of bad seasons, had fallen into the hands of the 
more moneyed class, and were crushed under a load of 
debts and mortgages. Like other peoples in similar con- 
ditions they sought for a political remedy to their economical 
distress by calling for a share in the government of the 
country. At the same time they complained that there 
was no certainty nor uniformity about the administration of 
justice. The Thesmothetae had indeed been appointed 
partly with the intention of securing written and recorded 
decisions of cases ; but there was no general code to guide 
them, and it would be long before a system of purely 
judge-made law could attain the desired precision and 
certainty of codified law. The agitation on both these 
grounds grew hot and led to violent civil dissension, and 
matters were not improved by the factions which prevailed 
among the governing aristocracy, of which the most 
powerful fahiily was that of the Alcmaeonidae. 

The first outcome of the perturbed state of the country 
was an attempt to establish a tyranny. Cylon, an Olympic 
victor of the year 640 B. C, about eight years later seized 
the Acropolis with a band of friends and followers, and 
called on the populace to rise in his support. The attempt 
was unfortunate. The government had a sufficient force 
in hand to check a rising, if the people had been disposed 


to attempt it ; the Acropolis was blockaded, and the well- 
known results followed. Cylon escaped, but his followers 
were forced to surrender and were treacherously put to 
death by the archon Megacles the Alcmaeonid. These 
events did not tend to allay the discord in the state. The 
enemies of the Alcmaeonidae had an effective handle 
given to them by the commission of this sacrilege, and 
attacked them more bitterly than before. The poor still 
complained of their want of representation in the govern- 
ment, of the uncertainty of the administration of the law, 
and of the generally hopeless condition of their prospects 
in life. This agitation at last had its effect, and about the 
year 631 B.C. the aristocracy consented to the appoint- 
ment of Draco to deal with the trouble as seemed to him 

The work by which Draco was best, and indeed almost 
solely, known in later times was his codification of the laws, 
by which penalties, severe indeed but at least definite, were 
assigned to the various crimes known to them. But he was 
not merely a legal reformer. His more important work was 
a re-adjustment of the constitution which in many respects 
anticipated the subsequent legislation of Solon, in which the 
reforms of the earlier statesman were swallowed up and lost 
to the memory of posterity. A share in the government was 
given to all persons capable of furnishing a military equip- 
ment, — precisely the qualification which, two hundred years 
later, was revived on the overthrow of the administration 
of the Four Hundred. With this step the Ecclesia must 
have come into practical existence, and to it was apparently 
transferred the election of officers of state ; and along with 
it Draco created a Council consisting of 401 members, with 
duties analogous to those which its successor fulfilled under 
the constitution of Solon. For the selection of this body, 
as well as for the appointment of some of the less im- 
portant magistrates, the principle of the lot was called into 


existence, probably mitigated by an initial selection of a 
limited number of candidates by the tribes. Property- 
qualiiications of varying amount were instituted for the 
several offices of state ; and fines were imposed for non- 
performance of public duties. Meanwhile the Areopagus, 
whose powers were diminished only in respect of the 
elections, remained as before the centre of political power. 
Draco attempted to provide a political solution for an 
economical problem, and with the natural result. The 
aristocracy were displeased with the infringement of their 
Eupatrid monopoly. The poor, with the land question 
unsettled, were just as much at the mercy of their 
creditors, who were practically their landlords, as they 
were before. There is an almost cynical tone in the 
brief sentence with which Aristotle closes his account of 
the reforms of Draco ; eirl be rois trw^atrti' ^crav bebf^voi, 
Kal 7] xa>pa hi oXiyuiv ^v. The natural results followed, 
avrearrr] rois yv<opift,oii 6 brjfios. The populace rose against 
the upper class, the upper class was divided against itself, 
the land was full of conflict, and abroad it could show no 
front to its enemies, who held Salamis before its very 
door. Various remedies were tried, but with little avail. 
The Alcmaeonidae, with the curse of heaven supposed to 
be resting on their house, were expelled from the country, 
and even their dead cast out of their tombs. But still the 
trouble continued, and Nisaea and Salamis, which under 
a sudden enthusiasm inspired by the poet Solon had been 
captured from Megara, were lost again within a few years. 
The curse was still on the country ; and Epimenides the 
Cretan was called in to make a solemn purification of the 
land. The popular excitement was thus allayed, but the 
economic causes of trouble were still untouched, and it is 
a sign of the pacific effect of the visit of Epimenides that 
a few years afterwards all parties came to an agreement 
to entrust the complete reform of the state to a single 


individual. Solon, who had won the respect of all as 
poet and devoted patriot, who was moreover of fair 
position and wealth, was selected and received a free 
hand to deal with the economic and political condition 
of affairs. 

He began with the former, and he found matters too 
desperate to admit of any but one remedy. All debts, 
public and private, were cancelled, and for the future the 
securing of debts upon the person of the debtor was 
forbidden. Independently of this, and subsequently to 
it, he effected a reform of the standards in use for weights, 
measures, and money, and introduced the Euboic standard 
of currency in place of the old Pheidonian or Aeginetan 
standard, thus simplifying Athenian trade with Asia 
Minor, and giving rise to that increase of prosperity from 
commerce which was the best security against the re- 
petition of such drastic measures as the o-eto-ox^eta. 

The economic pressure being lightened, he proceeded to 
deal with the political constitution. In the first place all 
existing laws, except those relating to murder, were 
repealed, so as to give the reformer a clear field on which 
to reconstruct the constitution according to his own ideas. 
He then proceeded to take a completely new basis for the 
organisation of the state. There was already in existence 
a classification of the people according to their property, 
which was no doubt used for purposes of taxation. 
This Solon adopted for his political purposes, and ac- 
cording to a man's position in one or other of these four 
classes, such was his share in the government of the 
country. The highest offices, such as the archonship and 
the stewardship of the treasury, were reserved for the 
Pentacosiomedimni. The Hippeis and the Zeugitae were 
eligible for minor magistracies; while those who were 
classed as Thetes, among whom was included the whole 
mass of the unskilled labourers of the country, received 


a voice in the Ecclesia and a seat in the law-courts by 
which the conduct of outgoing magistrates was reviewed 
at the conclusion of their term of office. The revolution 
was great, and even greater in potentiality than in im- 
mediate result. The qualification of birth was swept 
away and the qualification of property substituted. The 
election of magistrates was established on a popular basis, 
being given primarily to the tribes, ultimately to the lot. 
Thus in electing the archons the four tribes each elected 
ten candidates, and from the forty names thus submitted 
nine were chosen by lot. The Ecclesia, in which these 
elections were probably conducted, grew in importance, 
though still it is not likely that it exercised any perceptible 
control over the general management of public affairs. 
The Council of Draco was re-established, with the odd 
member struck off, making the total four hundred. By 
these measures, and by the general improvement in the 
position of the lower orders, the powers of the Areopagus 
were curtailed, but it still remained, as Aristotle expressly 
says, the guardian of the laws and of the state, with 
a general supervision of both public and private life, and 
a power of inflicting summary punishment. 

The constitution of Solon, though in many points he 
was only following his predecessor Draco, was rightly 
regarded in later times as the origin of the democracy of 
Athens. The labouring class was for the first time given 
a voice in the government, and was taught to look upon 
itself as having the right to review, and if necessary to 
censure, the conduct of affairs by the magistrates whom 
it had itself elected. The popular assembly became for 
the first time the representative of the collective voice of 
the whole people, though a long course of political training 
was necessary before the classes newly admitted to the 
franchise were capable of exercising to any important 
extent the powers thus committed to them. The consti- 


tution of Solon was a great and memorable achievement, 
not so much for what it immediately accomplished as for 
its indication of the lines along which the Athenian 
democracy was to develope. 

At the moment, indeed, it gave little satisfaction to 
anyone. The poorer classes had had their hopes and 
their cupidity excited by the long agitation which preceded 
the reforms ; and though in fact they were gainers every 
way by the new legislation, for the moment they were 
disappointed because there had not been a general re- 
distribution of the soil of the country, which would have 
given them a slice of their neighbours' property without 
labour and without cost. The aristocracy had more 
reason to be discontented with an arrangement which 
abolished the old distinctions of birth and threatened 
even their stronghold in the council of Areopagus, in 
addition to the absolute loss of whatever money they had 
had out on loan at the time of the a-eia-Axdeia. Even 
Solon's personal friends were not satisfied, except perhaps 
those who had made a fortune by sharp practice out of 
an early knowledge of the impending economic measures. 
They had confidently expected him to follow the example 
of so many other persons who had received similar au- 
tocratic powers in other states, by establishing himself 
as despot. No one indeed would have been surprised if 
he had done so; but his conduct and his writings (from 
which Aristotle makes considerable quotations) alike 
prove him to have been a man of rare principle and 
unselfish devotion to the public good. 

The immediate consequences were not, however, en- 
couraging. Assailed on all sides by complaints and criti- 
cisms, the discontented parties naturally making more 
noise than those who were satisfied, Solon preferred to 
quit Athens for a prolonged period of foreign travel, 
and to leave the public excitement to cool down by 


itself. For a short time there was no actual outbreak 
of disorder, but political feeling ran high, and the elections 
to the office of archon caused much excitement. In 
590 B.C. the conflict of parties was so keen that no archon 
could be elected at all, and four years later the same 
phenomenon was repeated. No details are given as to 
the parties or the leaders between whom these contests 
were at this time carried on, but probably the divisions 
were the same as those which we find existing a little 
later, namely, the party of the Plain, who were the ex- 
treme oligarchs ; the Shore, which included the Alcmaeo- 
nidae and desired a moderate or mixed form of government ; 
and the Mountain, which represented the poorer classes of 
the democracy, to whom were attached the desperate and 
broken men ' and every one that was distressed, and every 
one that was in debt, and every one that was discontented ' 
in every class of society. 

But a fresh turn was given to affairs in 581 B.C., when 
an attempt was made to overthrow the constitution and 
establish a tyranny in its place. Damasias, who had been 
archon in the previous year, contrived to be continued in 
office during this year also. We are not told on what 
pretext this was effected, and the fact does not appear to 
have aroused alarm. But when the time came for new 
archons to enter into office in 580 B.C., and Damasias still 
showed no signs of abandoning his position, it wels clear 
that his intention was to establish himself as a despot. 
Against this danger all parties of the state united, and 
as the would-be tyrant had neglected to provide himself 
with the only trustworthy support of a despotism, a paid 
military force, he was expelled from his position within 
two months after the completion of his second year of 
office. It then became necessary to provide for the govern- 
ment of the country during the remainder of the year, and 
as all parties had combined in the expulsion of the tyrant, 


all had a right to have their claims to consideration re- 
spected in the matter. The old aristocracy could not 
reasonably exclude the representatives of the other classes 
from a share in the government, but on the other hand 
• they thought it a good opportunity to abolish the Solonian 
property-qualification which refused to recognise the claims 
of birth. Accordingly they reverted to the older division 
of classes, and drew up a board of ten, of which half was 
reserved to the Eupatridae, while three representatives 
were assigned to the Geomori and two to the Demiurgi. 
But this arrangement does not seem to have given satis- 
faction, for we hear nothing of its being continued beyond 
the year for which it was created, and we must presume 
that the Solonian system then returned into force. 

Matters now settled down for twenty years into a condi- 
tion of active party warfare, but without positive disturbance 
so far as we are aware. Probably the sections which bore 
the most prominent part in the yearly struggles for office 
were the Shore and the Plain. The labouring class, known 
as the Mountain, could not hope to elect any representative 
of their own to high office in the state, being excluded by 
the property-qualification ; but they might turn the scale 
between the two other parties, and they might be of great 
value to an able leader with ulterior designs of his own. 
Such a leader they found at last in Pisistratus. Born 
probably about 600 B.C., he had distinguished himself 
while still comparatively young as a leader in war, and 
had conducted a successful campaign against Megara, 
which culminated in the capture of Nisaea. On the 
strength of this achievement he appeared as a leader 
in the political contests, attaching himself to the party 
of the commons and being accepted by them as their 
chief. Within a few years his real intentions, of which 
the now aged Solon had warned the people in some 
more of those political poems which had first won him 


fame, became manifest to all. In 560 B.C. he made his 
first bid for the tyranny. By the well-known stratagem 
he secured an armed body-guard, and with that body- 
guard he seized the Acropolis. His force was sufficient 
to overawe opposition for the moment, and it is probable* 
that the common people did not regret a change which 
relieved them from the government of their hereditary 
enemies, the Eupatrid oligarchy. The exhortations of 
Solon were unheeded, and Pisistratus was allowed to es- 
tablish himself in autocratic power. 

At first, however, it did not appear that this new attempt 
at despotism would have a much greater success than that 
of Damasias. After five years the two other factions in 
the state combined against the despot, and their power 
proved greater than his. Pisistratus was driven into exile, 
and for four years he had no chance of a return. Then 
the cards of party were shuffled anew, Megacles the leader 
of the Alcmaeonidae and Pisistratus made friends, and 
the latter was re-established in the tyranny as the husband 
of his ally's daughter. Still, however, he had not learnt 
the only way in which a despotism could be made secure, 
and when a quarrel with his father-in-law threw the latter 
once more into alliance with Lycurgus and the party of the 
Plain, he had no choice but to escape while there was time, 
lest a worse thing happen to him. His second period of 
government had lasted about six years, but he had nearly 
twice that length of time to pass in exile. This time he 
learned his lesson thoroughly. He settled for some years in 
the rich metalliferous districts about the Strymon and 
Mount Pangaeus, and with the money which he derived 
thence he hired mercenaries and allies, and when about 
535 B. C. he came back to Athens, he came to stay. His 
last period of government was not indeed very much 
longer than his other two, lasting apparently for about 
eight years, but it was of a very different kind. Before 


he had never been certain of his seat and was dependent 
on the precarious support of political rivals. This time he 
was firm in the saddle, and when he died at a good old 
age in 527 B.C. he left the quiet possession of the kingdom 
to his sons. 

Of the government of the tyrants at Athens there is not 
much that is new to be said. It is agreed on all hands 
that the administration of Pisistratus was mild and bene- 
ficent, so that, as Aristotle expressly mentions, men re- 
called it afterwards as the Golden Age. The principle 
of. the policy of Pisistratus was to keep the people em- 
ployed and to keep them contented. To these ends law 
was administered equally and fairly, capital was provided 
to encourage agriculture and commerce, public works were 
commenced on a large scale, while a tax of one-tenth on 
the produce of the land served the double purpose of pro- 
viding the government with a sufificient revenue, and of 
requiririg the cultivator to devote more time and attention 
to his occupation in order to meet this additional demand. 
The sons of the tyrant continued the same policy. The 
main business of government was conducted by the elder, 
Hippias, while Hipparchus cultivated literature and art 
and devoted himself to the pursuit of his own enjoyment. 
For thirteen years this lasted uninterrupted and unthreat- 
ened. Then came the conspiracy of Harmodius and 
Aristogeiton, the murder of Hipparchus, four years of 
soured rule from the alarmed and embittered Hippias, 
the bought interference of the Delphic oracle, and finally 
in 510 B.C. the expulsion of the tyrant and his house by 
the agency of Sparta. 

The democracy was re-established, and with the demo- 
cracy its party struggles. But a fresh departure was at 
hand. The Alcmaeonidae had always been opposed to the 
extreme oligarchs and in favour of some form of govern- 
ment intermediate between oligarchy and democracy. This 


time they went further, and their leader Cleisthenes entered 
into close association with the commons, thereby securing 
his own elevation to power. The attempt of the Spartans 
to destroy the new democracy at the instance of the 
expelled oligarch Isagoras, and in revenge for the fraud 
by which the Delphic oracle had prompted them to over- 
throw their good friends the Pisistratidae, here checked his 
progress for the moment, but the resolute action of the 
populace of Athens nipped in the bud an effort which had 
not calculated on so vigorous a resistance. The oligarchs 
captured with Cleomenes and Isagoras in the Acropolis 
were put to death, and their friends learned a lesson which 
kept them from interfering with the development of the 
democratic schemes of Cleisthenes. He determined to put 
an end, for good and all, to the local and family factions 
which had so long disturbed Athens. The old tribal 
divisions, with their subdivisions the trittyes and naucraries, 
were swept away. A new set of tribes, ten in number so 
as to be incapable of being made to correspond with any 
existing subdivisions of the earlier four, was called into exis- 
tence, with newnames and newassociations. To each of these 
tribes were assigned three divisions bearing the old name 
of trittyes, of which one was taken from each of the three 
local divisions of the Plain, the Shore, and the Mountain, 
and these trittyes were again subdivided into demes, which 
henceforth became the local unit of Athenian politics. In 
a short time all the ordinary associations of civil life were 
connected with the deme to which a man belonged, and by 
the name of which, together with the name of his father, he 
was officially known ; and the old local factions dis- 
appeared finally from Athenian history. 

This was the main feature of the constitution of Cleis- 
thenes, but there were various other alterations introduced 
by him, mostly of a less striking character in themselves, 
but all tending in the same direction, namely the extension 


of the powers of the commons. The most remarkable of 
these was the law of ostracism, which gave the populace 
the power by a free vote to decide between two rival 
leaders of the state, and thereby to commit itself un- 
reservedly to the policy of one or the other. This was 
especially introduced as a precaution against the partisans 
of the expelled tyrants ; but in the first instance the mere 
threat was found to be sufficient, and it was not put in 
force until the first Persian invasion showed that danger 
was still to be apprehended from that quarter. Another 
measure which must be ascribed to Cleisthenes, though it 
is the absolute contrary of that which has generally been 
believed to be a great feature of his constitution, is the 
direct election of the principal magistrates, such as the 
archons, by the popular assembly. Solon had, as wd have 
seen, established a combination of election and the lot, 
a system which had probably been abrogated by the 
government of the tyrants ; for, though archons were 
undoubtedly elected during that period, it is certain that 
the people were not allowed to make a free choice of their 
magistrates (Thuc. VI. 54). Cleisthenes, however, naturally 
thought that it would strengthen the democracy to be able 
to choose directly the chief officers of the state ; and 
indeed some such step must have seemed necessary in the 
critical years following the expulsion of the tyrants. It 
was not until the democracy seemed firmly established 
that, in the year 487 B.C., a system of the lot, closely 
resembling that of Solon, was re-established. 

Certain other measures followed in connection with the 
institution of the ten tribes. The old tribes had elected 
one hundred members each to form the Council of Four 
Hundred ; the new tribes were required each to elect only 
half that number, which gave the new Council a total of five 
hundred. The numerous boards of ten which existed in 
later days in Athens were of course based on the ten tribes 



of Cleisthenes, but they cannot safely be ascribed to his 
times. The most important of them, the Strategi, does 
not seem to have been instituted till some years afterwards ; 
and for many of the others there would have been no 
necessity at that date. Nor does Aristotle give us any 
ground for connecting the dicasteries with Cleisthenes in 
any way. That they existed in some shape before that 
time is certain from his account of the constitution of Solon, 
in which the right to obtain justice for injuries and the 
power of voting in the law-courts, especially with reference 
to the review of a magistrate's conduct at the end of his 
term of office, are specified as two of the most important 
characteristics of that constitution ; and there is nothing to 
show that the elaborate organisation of the judicial body 
which prevailed at a later time is to be attributed to 

Of Cleisthenes himself we hear nothing after the year of 
his recall, in 508 B. c, and his predominance does not seem 
to have lasted long. The story of his suffering under his 
own law of ostracism is certainly false, and may be ascribed 
to a pleasing sense of poetical justice untrammelled by the 
details of facts ; but the suggestion of Curtius, that he was 
forced to retire from public life through the indignation 
aroused by the proposal to buy Persian help against 
Sparta by submission to the Great King, is not improbable. 
However that may be, his work was done, and the Athenian 
democracy had made its next great step in advance on the 
lines laid down by Solon. The power of the lower orders 
now began to be felt in the state. The Ecclesia began to 
exercise larger functions, and its consent to any policy 
suggested by the Areopagus could no longer be assumed. 
The old factions were swept away, and it became necessary 
for the statesman who aspired to guide the country to have 
the ear of the people. The difference in practical working 
between the constitution of Solon and the constitution of 


Cleisthenes may be seen by a contrast of the methods of 
party warfare employed by Megacles and Pisistratus on the 
one hand, and Themistocles and Aristides on the other. 

The effect of the reforms of Cleisthenes was seen at once 
in a long period of peace and development, during which 
Athens made that striking progress which is so strongly 
commented on by Herodotus (V. 78). Then came the 
period of the Persian wars, from which the democracy of 
Athens, which had been threatened with utter overthrow 
and dissolution, emerged stronger than ever. The years 
between the two invasions showed some striking develop- 
ments of great importance. Two years after Marathon the 
Athenians resorted for the first time to the machinery of 
ostracism, and against the very individual against whom it 
had been first designed, Hipparchus the representative of 
the family and party of the exiled tyrants. The appearance 
of Hippias in the Persian army and the treacherous attempt 
to betray the city to the invaders by the signal from 
Pentelicus showed that precautions must be taken against 
the recurrence of such an event, in case the threatened 
repetition of the invasion by Darius should actually take 
place ; and accordingly at this time several persons be- 
longing to the same party were ostracised. Having once 
tasted the pleasures of this summary method of dealing 
with leading personages, the populace was unwilling to 
abandon it and extended it to others from whom no 
similar danger could be feared ; and in 486 B.C. Xahthip- 
pus, and about 483 B.C. Aristides, were sent into exile, 
though both were recalled, with others, in the spring of 
480 B. C, when Xerxes was marching upon Greece. Mean- 
while in 487 B.C. the system of the lot was re-introduced 
for the election of the archons, in the shape of an extension 
of the Solonian method. The tribes nominated ten (or 
possibly fifty) candidates each for the post, and from this 
number the nine archons were chosen by lot, one from each 

c a 


of nine tribes, while from the tenth was chosen their 
secretary. In 483 B.C. occurred the very important dis- 
covery of the silver mines of Laurium or Maroneia, from 
the proceeds of which Themistocles persuaded the Athenians 
to build the triremes which secured the safety of Athens and 
of Greece at the battle of Salamis. 

The period which follows the Persian wars and leads up 
to the Peloponnesian war is one of. steady development 
of the power of the democracy. With the expansion of 
the Athenian maritime empire and the course of inter- 
Hellenic politics during this same period Aristotle has 
nothing to do; but he throws some light on the chronology 
of the internal history of Athens. The first notable result 
of the war was a revival of the power of the Areopagus. 
The reforms of Cleisthenes and the consequent develop- 
ment of the democracy had seriously impaired its authority, 
but a period of war gave it an opportunity such as came 
to the Roman senate during the straggle with Carthage. 
At the critical moment before Salamis, when there was 
much doubt whether sufficient crews would be forthcoming 
to man the fleet, the strategi, who now were the chiefs of 
the military and naval forces of the country, seemed to be 
inclined to throw up the game in despair and bid every one 
save himself as best he could. At this moment the 
aristocratic council intervened and by a timely donation 
of money secured crews to man the fleet and saved Athens 
and Greece from disaster. This achievement raised the 
prestige of the Areopagus, and for several years it was 
once again the centre of the administration. Under its 
superintendence, as Aristotle testifies, all went well. The 
power of Athens expanded on every side. Under the 
leadership of Aristides the Confederacy of Delos was 
established in 478 B.C., and by the combined action of the 
two rivals, Aristides and Themistocles, the walls of Athens 
were rebuilt. Each of these statesmen served his country 


in his own way ; but while the great achievements of 
Themistocles were connected with war and the preparations 
for war, Aristides is more important from the constitu- 
tional point of view. Though it is not the case, as has 
been supposed, that he threw open the archonship to all 
classes of the community, it was he that initiated another 
step which was of far greater importance for the develop- 
ment of the democracy. Aristotle attributes to him the 
counsel that the people should gather in the capital, 
instead of living scattered over the whole face of Attica, 
whereby they would be able to use their numerical strength 
to control the course of public affairs ; while they could 
count on making their living by the payments given for 
service in the army or in garrisons and for other public 
duties. This was the beginning of that system of living 
on the public purse which was carried to such lengths by 
the later demagogues in their competition for popular 
favour, whereby, even before payment was introduced for 
service in the Ecclesia, upwards of twenty thousand persons 
were receiving money from the public treasury. 

Meanwhile a reaction was taking place against the 
supremacy of the council of Areopagus. Though that 
body could no longer have been the exclusively aristo- 
cratic assembly which it was in the days when it elected 
the magistrates from whom it was itself to be recruited, 
it still represented a conservative element in the con- 
stitution. Office has a sobering and conservative effect 
upon all men, and the Areopagus was for some time after 
the Persian wars composed largely of men who had won 
their archonship by direct election, and who probably in 
most cases belonged to the higher classes of society. All 
the traditions of the body were opposed to the rapid 
march of democracy, and it could only hold its own by 
evidence of pre-eminent capacity for government. But in 
this respect a change was coming over it. The degradation 


of the office of archon by the introduction of the lot in the 
elections told upon the character of the Areopagus. Instead 
of being a council of the 6\ke of the aristocracy it was 
becoming little more than a glorified vestry. It was not 
likely that the growing democracy, conscious of its strength 
in its own assembly, would always submit to the super- 
vision of a body composed of second-class magistrates 
selected by the hazard of the lot, whose prestige and 
considerable powers were generally directed to the re- 
tarding of its growth and development. The attack which 
was at last formally made upon the ancient council was 
headed by Ephialtes, and was delivered in the year 46a B. c. 
In this enterprise he had a strange ally from within the 
numbers of the Areopagus itself, in no less a person than 
Themistocles. This somewhat tortuous politician was at the 
time under apprehension of a charge of Medism, which was 
being investigated by the Areopagus ; and his share in the 
attack which was now being made on that body consisted 
principally in hastening the course of events. Having 
first warned Ephialtes that the Areopagus was about to 
arrest him, he proceeded to the Areopagus and there 
denounced Ephialtes as being engaged in a conspiracy 
against the state, and offered to conduct a party to the 
house where the conspirators were assembled. On arriving 
at the house of Ephialtes he managed that he should be 
seen talking with the members of the council who ac- 
companied him. Ephialtes, thinking no doubt that the 
warning of Themistocles was being fulfilled, escaped and 
took refuge at the altar ; but realising that his only chance 
of safety lay in taking the bull by the horns, he hurried to 
the Council of Five Hundred and made a violent attack 
on the Areopagus, presumably proposing to strip it at 
once of its peculiar powers. In this he was seconded by 
the versatile Themistocles, who no doubt was able to 
furnish some plausible explanation of his conduct. The 


matter was carried from the Council to the Ecclesia, and 
the attack was there completely successful. The Areo- 
pagus was deprived of all the rights which made it the 
general guardian of the state, and its functions were 
distributed between the Five Hundred, the Ecclesia, and 
the law-courts. Neither of the leaders, however, derived 
much advantage from their success. In the heat of party- 
strife to which the conflict had given rise Ephialtes was 
assassinated, within the same year as the overthrow of 
the Areopagus ; and though Themistocles seems to have 
escaped from the accusation which was then impending, 
he was ostracised almost immediately afterwards, and 
whilst in banishment the revelations which followed on 
the disgrace and death of Pausanias of Sparta made it 
necessary for him to flee from the soil of Greece and take 
refuge in Persia. 

With the fall of the Areopagus the last check on the 
1 autocratic rule of the democracy was removed, and from 
this moment Aristotle dates the deterioration of the tone 
of Athenian politics. It is marked by the rise of the 
demagogues, men who depended for the retention of their 
power on their ability to please the varying tastes of the 
popular assembly. As soon as it becomes necessary for 
statesmen to think, not what is best for the interests of 
the state, but what will be popular with the majority, the 
character of politics and of public life must be lowered. 
The decline was hastened by the drain on the best 
material of Athens caused by the constantly recurring 
foreign wars and expeditions, in which, according to 
Aristotle, the incapacity of generals of excellent family 
but no military experience led to the loss every time of 
two or three thousand of the flower of the army. No 
constitutional changes of any great importance took place 
in this period, though Aristotle notes the extension of 
eligibility to the archonship to the Zeugitae in 457 B.C. 


and the limitation of the citizenship to those who could 
show Attic descent on both sides in 451 B.C. The latter 
measure was the work of Pericles, who here makes his 
first appearance in the pages of Aristotle. No doubt he 
had taken part in public life for some years before 
this time. He may been one of the supporters of 
Ephialtes in his campaign against the Areopagus, though 
he certainly was not one of the leaders in it ; and in any 
case he followed up the policy thus initiated by fresh 
legislation against some of the remaining privileges of 
that body. In the purely constitutional history of Athens, 
however, Pericles is not a figure of any great importance. 
No new departure was made by him. He merely carried 
out the principle of the sovereignty of the popular assembly 
which had been established by Ephialtes, and though he 
carried it out in such a way as to disguise the real dangers 
and weaknesses of that principle, he was yet in truth only 
the first of the demagogues to whom Athens ultimately 
owed her ruin. So long as the Ecclesia was directed by 
a man of high character and far-sighted statesmanship, 
such as Pericles, no harm could result ; but when he was 
removed from the scene, the leadership fell into the hands 
of men of no principle and little statesmanship, and the 
assembly, growing arrogant by the very weakness of its 
leaders, became less and less manageable and less and less 
capable of directing the affairs of an empire through the 
various crises of a great war. The populace subsisted 
now on the public purse. Pericles had instituted payment 
for service in the law-courts, and when the Peloponnesian 
invasions drove all the inhabitants of Attica within the 
walls of the capital, and everyone was receiving pay either 
as juror or as soldier or as magistrate, the control of the 
state fell into the hands of the least capable but nu- 
merically largest section of the democracy, and of those 
who were best able to tickle its fancies or gratify its greed. 


The Athens of the early days of the Confederacy of Delos, 
in which the aristocratic, and democratic elements were not 
unequally blended in the constitution, was capable of 
empire ; but the Athens of the unmitigated democracy 
was not. 

So Athens went steadily downhill, and of the later 
politicians those whom Aristotle finds it most in his heart 
to commend are Thucydides and Nicias and even the 
opportunist Theramenes. The mention of the latter leads 
on naturally to the description of the constitutional crisis 
of the year 411 B.C. The disasters in Sicily and the 
absence of a large part of the able-bodied population of 
Athens with the fleet at Samos left the democracy at 
home weak and without leaders. In addition to this the 
report was industriously put about that the support of the 
Great King might be secured if only the constitution was 
changed from an extreme democracy to a moderate 
oligarchy. Those who preferred the safety of the country 
to the particular form of its government might thus be 
excused for being lukewarm in the defence of the de- 
mocracy, while those who might have been disposed to 
resist were paralysed by the terrorism established by the 
oligarchical clubs and societies. The proposals of the 
oligarchical leaders were complicated and rather obscure, 
involving a provisional form of government of which a 
Council of Four Hundred was the chief element, and a 
scheme for a constitution to be adopted hereafter, with a 
sovereign body of Five Thousand and councils of one 
hundred succeeding one another in rotation, of which the 
first four were to be carved out of the original Four 
Hundred. It is not necessary to go into the details of 
these schemes, which are given at great length by 
^ristotle. They are of little constitutional importance, 
as for the most part they were not carried into effect but 
represent merely the paper constitution of an oligarchical 


commission, which failed of being put into force through 
the overthrow of the government of the Four Hundred 
four months after it had been established. 

On the course of events between the fall of the Four 
Hundred and the end of the war Aristotle throws little 
fresh light. He repeats briefly the approval expressed by 
Thucydides of the government of the Five Thousand (a 
nominal number including all those who were able to 
furnish arms) which was established after the overthrow 
of the oligarchy. He merely adds that the democracy 
re-assumed the government very shortly afterwards, which 
may be taken to confirm the suggestion that this occurred 
after the battle of Cyzicus in 410 B. C, when the fleet, with 
its strong democratic tendencies, returned to Athens. 
Four years later came the victory of Arginusae, which 
gave Athens her last chance of an honourable escape from 
the war. But that victory was followed by a blunder and 
a crime which neutralised its results. The crime was the 
condemnation of the generals, of which Aristotle gives 
only a brief and apparently inaccurate account. The 
blunder was the refusal of the peace proposed by the 
Lacedaemonians, fatuously voted by the criminally light- 
hearted Ecclesia in obedience to the drunken braggadocio 
of Cleophon. The opportunity passed, never to return, 
and the next year saw Athens at the feet of her conqueror. 
The summer of 405 B.C. brought the fatal battle, or 
rather surprise, of Aegospotami, and in the following April 
Athens surrendered. 

The fall of Athens brought upon her the last of her 
many alterations of constitution. The terms of peace 
included the provision that ' the ancient constitution ' 
{■fj TTcirptos TToAtre^a) should be restored. The expressrcm 
left room for a considerable variety of interpretation, an4 
the democrats, the moderate aristocrats (the leader of 
whom was Theramenes), and the extreme oHgarchs all 


claimed to interpret it in a way suitable to their own 
views. But Lysander constituted himself a court of 
appeal to which there was no superior, and he cast his 
vote with the extreme oligarchs. The Thirty Tyrants, as 
they shortly came to be known, were established in power 
by a forced vote of the people, and entered upon office 
about the beginning of May, 404 B. C. At first no com- 
plaint could be made of their rule, beyond their neglect to 
draw up the scheme of the constitution which was the 
special duty committed to them. Few regretted the 
strong measures which they took against those pests of 
the law-courts, the professional accusers, and the other 
discreditable parasites of the democracy. But ' I'app^tit 
vient en mangeant,' and the Thirty were less in favour 
when they passed on to lay hands on persons whose only 
offence was wealth. The butcher's bill mounted up fast, 
and in a few months the total of persons put to death by 
the oligarchy reached fifteen hundred. Meanwhile trouble 
was impending both within and without the city. Abroad, 
the numbers of the exiles in the neighbouring states of 
Thebes and Argos were increasing and the government 
was rapidly losing the sympathy of the inhabitants of 
those countries. At home, the moderate party among 
the Thirty was protesting more and more vehemently 
against the violence of the extremists. Theramenes, their 
leader, constantly urged the more extreme party to place 
the government on a broader basis, in order to secure 
more popular support. To pacify him, his colleagues 
agreed to draw up a roll of three thousand names, who 
should have some share in the government ; but they 
delayed to publish the list and had clearly no intention 
of making it a reality. 

At this point their action began to be hastened from 
outside. Late in the autumn Thrasybulus, with his little 
band of seventy fellow-exiles, surprised and occupied the 


frontier post of Phyle. The Thirty made one or two 
attempts to expel the intruders, but the severe weather 
and a clever surprise effected by Thrasybulus caused their 
forces to retire defeated. They began now to take alarm 
and perceived that it was necessary to set their house 
somewhat in order, that they might not be divided against 
themselves at home. The first step was to dispose of 
Theramenes, a person who must at all times have been 
singularly embarrassing to his less versatile colleagues. 
This was done, according to Aristotle, in a somewhat 
neater fashion than the rough-and-ready method described 
by Xenophon. A law was proposed which gave the Thirty 
summary power of life and death against all who were 
not on the list of the Three Thousand as finally revised 
and published. This was probably passed without much 
opposition even from the more moderate members of 
the Thirty ; but it was followed by another which enacted 
that all persons should be excluded from a share in the 
government [i. e. from the Three Thousand) who had had 
any hand in overthrowing the Four Hundred. By this 
law Theramenes was clearly put outside the pale and was 
thereupon arrested and put to death. Immediately after 
this the whole population outside the Three Thousand was 
deprived of arms, a Spartan force was (now for the first 
time, according to Aristotle) invited to the Acropolis, and 
the Thirty may have felt that they could now look their 
enemy in the face. 

If so, they were promptly undeceived. Thrasybulus 
had been waiting at Phyle till his numbers had increased 
to upwards of a thousand ; but about January, a time 
when military movements were not to be expected, he 
suddenly set out for Athens and established himself in 
Munychia before the Thirty could gather a force to oppose 
him. The combat that followed killed the chiefs of the 
Thirty and wrecked their government. The very next day 


their followers met in the agora and deposed their defeated 
and discredited leaders, and appointed a new board of Ten 
with instructions to bring the war to a close. The Ten, 
however, had ideas of the pleasures of government which 
led them to neglect their commission, and their first steps 
were to send representatives to Sparta to secure coun- 
tenance and a loan of money. When complaints began 
to be heard against them in the city, some timely severity, 
backed by Callibius and his Spartans, showed that they 
did not mean to be trifled with. It was not until the bulk 
of the population had slipped away to Piraeus, and it 
became clear that the party of the city had become weaker 
than that of the suburb, that the obstruction of the Ten 
was overcome. A second board of Ten was appointed, 
consisting of moderate and constitutional men, and these, 
acting in unison with the Spartan king Pausanias, brought 
the negotiations to a successful issue. An amnesty was 
granted, with exceptions only against the Thirty, the first 
board of Ten, and their immediate instruments, and, while 
every inducement was held out to persuade all other persons 
to remain in Athens, a sanctuary was granted at Eleusis to 
those who were afraid to stay. The tact, moderation, and 
justice of Archinus, one of the leaders of the exiles who 
returned with Thrasybulus, smoothed over the dangers and 
difficulties which naturally attended the first few months of 
settling down after the civil war ; and when, two years 
afterwards, the last traces of the evil times had been 
obliterated by the re-absorption of the secessionists at 
Eleusis into the body of the community, the last of the 
revolutions of Athens was over and her constitutional 
history closed. 

So at least it seemed to Aristotle, and few will care to 
dispute his judgment. It is true that the restored de- 
mocracy lasted for three-quarters of a century yet, and that 
a history of that period is much to be desired from some 


less prejudiced authority than that of the orators. But it 
presents no points of constitutional interest, and Aristotle 
could have done little but echo the lamentations of De- 
mosthenes over the shallow fickleness and the vanished 
energy of the Athenian democracy. Nor could we wish 
for an account of the petty details of changes which followed 
on the descent of Greece to the position of a subject 
power, or to know that a tribe was added here and a ship's 
name altered there in compliment to one or other of the 
successors of Alexander. The lessons of Athenian con- 
stitutional history, such as they are, end with the close of 
the fifth century. Aristotle sums them up in a list of 
eleven epochs^, and when we consider that ten of the 
changes enumerated fall within a period of barely more 
than two hundred years, it can but intensify the feeling 
which inevitably arises from the study of the history of 
Athens, that, while no nation ever possessed such brilliant 
philosophical writers with such an aptitude for political 
theory, none was ever so incompetent to convert those 
theories into stable political practice. 

The second part of Aristotle's work requires very little 
description. Not only is the MS. considerably mutilated 
in this portion, but the contents are of far less interest and 
importance than those of the earlier part ; and in addition 
to this it has been largely quarried by the grammarians and 
lexicographers, so that much of it is already known, at 
least in substance. It is a summaiy of the machinery of 

' He takes the original establishment of Ion and his successors as his starting- 
point, and enumerates the following epochs of change: (i) Theseus, a slight 
modification of absolute monarchy; (2) Draco, the first legislator; (3) Solon, 
the foundation of the democracy; (4) Pisistratus, the period of tyranny; 

(5) Cleisthenes, the re-establishment of democracy in a more pronounced form ; 

(6) the Persian wars, the revival of the Areopagus ; (7) Aristides and Ephialtes, 
the encouragement of the lower orders and overthrow of the Areopagus, 
followed by the disastrous period of the demagogues ; (8) the Four Hundred ; 
(9) the restored democracy; (10) the Thirty and the Ten; (11) the finally 
restored democracy. 


government as it existed in the days of Aristotle. It 
begins with the forms of admission of the youthful Athenian 
to his place in the constitution when he came of age, and 
it proceeds to describe in turn the functions of the Ecclesia, 
the Council, the magistrates, whether elected by lot or by 
direct vote, and the courts of law. The section dealing 
with the Ecclesia and Council is perfect, but the details of 
their procedure are not as full as we might perhaps wish, 
or as is the case with the section on the law-courts. The 
account of the magistrates would be complete, being fully 
included within the limits of the six columns of MS. which 
occupy the third roll of the papyrus, were it not disfigured 
by a large number of serious mutilations. The law-courts 
formed the final section, but of this very little remains in a 
decipherable condition, though enough to show that their 
forms of procedure were detailed at considerable length. 

In all this, however, Aristotle is only describing the 
mechanism of government. What we miss throughout 
the treatise, and especially in the second part of it, is any 
discussion of the spirit and principles of the Athenian 
constitution. This formed no part of the scheme of the 
present work. The TloXiTilai professed only to be collections 
of facts. The generalisations and the deductions obtained 
from them belonged rather to the Politics. But in point 
of fact there is not much profit to be derived from minutely 
inspecting the political proceedings of the Greek states. 
The Greeks had none of the genius for organisation which 
distinguished the Romans, and the influence of their 
example on the political development of the modern world 
has been extremely slight. At Athens, above all (and it 
is at Athens alone that we know much of the internal 
history of the state), there was no aptitude for the sobriety, 
the conservatism, the adherence to forms which are essential 
to the solid building up of a political constitution. The 
Athenians had none of the tenderness for old formulas 


which have marked both the Romans and the English. If 
they contemplated a change, they made a clean sweep of 
the institutions of which they were tired. They were not 
fond of acting upon principles, and consequently it is 
useless to refer to their history for evidence of the principles 
upon which the government of a country may be adminis- 
tered. The instructiveness of Athenian political history 
lies rather in the concrete lessons which may be gathered 
from a study of the actual fortunes of certain forms of 
government, and particularly the rise, development, and 
degeneration of the democracy. It is true that any re- 
flections which may be based on this must be: qualified by 
the recognition of the fact that the Athenian democracy 
was not a democracy of the busy working classes, but was 
founded upon slave labour. Whether for good or for evil, 
the members of the Athenian democracy had leisure to 
devote themselves to the continued personal participation 
in the affairs of practical politics, and had also leisure for 
general self-culture in other directions. In these respects 
they differed materially from modern democracies. But 
on the other hand many of the deductions with reference 
to democracy which may be drawn from Athenian history 
hold good, — all, indeed, which rest on the fact that the 
persons deciding on any political question were the same 
as those who were directly affected by the decision arrived 
at. The Athenian Ecclesia was responsible to no other 
power or person, and it had no interests to consider except 
its own ; and though no modern nation can have a sovereign 
assembly which includes every adult man in the com- 
munity, yet a parliament whose members are delegates or 
mouth-pieces of their constituencies, and not representatives 
with independent judgments, embodies a form of democracy 
which is sufficiently parallel with that of Athens to make 
it worth while to study the history of that state and the 
observations thereupon of so acute a critic as Aristotle. 


This is not the place to discuss the conclusions which may 
be derived from it. Grote has drawn one series of judgments 
from it ; other critics have drawn others of a different 
character. The only point which concerns us here is that 
the evidence of Aristotle on such a matter is no unim- 
portant addition to our knowledge of the subject. 

This is a fact which will hardly be disputed, whether 
his work be regarded as a contribution to the lessons of 
political philosophy, or as an assistance to the recon- 
struction of the history of a country in which we are so 
deeply interested as Athens. It is true that we have 
already Herodotus, Thucydides, Xenophon, and Plutarch 
as authorities for the same period. But of these Thucy- 
dides alone is beyond suspicion, and it is precisely the 
years covered by his history that are of least importance to 
the work of Aristotle. Herodotus is brief and often un- 
satisfactory on the early history of Athens, and has little 
interest in purely political and constitutional details. 
Xenophon's accuracy is open to doubt, and his narrative 
is so incomplete as to admit of considerable supple- 
menting, not to say correction. Plutarch's sources were 
of too various a quality to allow of his extremely valuable 
narratives being taken without reservation ; and one of the 
great advantages of the re-appearance of Aristotle's work 
is that it enables us to test in many points the accuracy of 
Plutarch's compilations. On the merits of Aristotle as an 
authority it is not necessary to dwell. His impartiality, 
his dispassionateness, his matter-of-fact statement of his 
materials, are as evident here as in any of his other works. 
He records facts creditable to the democracy and facts 
which tell against it with an equal air of desiring nothing 
but the truth. And indeed he occupied a position in 
which impartiality was not very difficult. The game of 
Athenian independence was over. Aristotle's own interests 
were in no way bound up with the credit or with the 



success of any political party. He was able to stand aloof 
and calmly collect the facts of the past history of Athens 
just as impartially as when he was dealing with the 
Carthaginians or the Brahmins, with the rules of the 
syllogism or the structures of the animal creation. 

Of the authorities used in his task he tells us little, 
almost nothing. It is certain that he was acquainted with 
both Herodotus and Thucydides. Herodotus he quotes 
by name (ch. 14) ; and in another passage he mentions, for 
the purpose of correction, a narrative which is identical 
with that of Thucydides (ch. 18). For the period of Solon 
he evidently used Solon's own writings, from which he 
makes considerable quotations. But for the rest there 
seems to be nothing to show what his sources were. Only, 
from the detailed way in which he describes the constitu- 
tions of Draco or of Cleisthenes, from the precise dates 
which are so frequently given in his narrative (which 
enable us to fix several events with an exactness hitherto 
impossible), it is clear that he did not rest upon tradition 
alone, but was making use of written records of some kind 
or another. Fortunately it is not of so much importance 
to identify his actual sources as in the case of such an 
author as Plutarch. Aristotle took care to sift his evidence 
for himself, instead of leaving it to be done by posterity, 
and when he clearly and positively states a fact his state- 
ment is not lightly to be put aside. 

This Introduction is only the first word upon a subject 
on which the last word cannot be spoken for a long time. 
The whole work opens up possibilities of discussion in 
every direction, and raises questions which can only be 
settled by a consensus of opinion after they have been 
examined and considered by scholars of all countries. In 
the present edition the matter of most importance is the 
text, and every effort has been made to reproduce it as 


accurately as possible. There remain not a few passages, 
however, which still require emendation by conjecture, in 
some of which the reading of the MS. is completely lost, 
while in others a few faint traces of letters remain which 
will serve as tests of the accuracy of any proposed restora- 
tion. For the rest, the notes represent a first attempt to 
estimate the bearing of the new material on the received 
versions of Athenian history. 

The text has been divided into chapters for convenience 
of reference, but the beginnings of the original columns of 
the MS. are indicated in the margin. Square brackets 
have been used to mark words or letters which have been 
supplied where the MS. is illegible, and words which 
appear to have been accidentally omitted in the MS. 
are supplied between angular brackets. The few cases 
in which the reading of the MS. has not been followed 
in the text are recorded in the notes, while passages in 
which the MS. reading appears to be corrupt, but which 
have not been altered in the text, are marked by asterisks. 

F. G. K. 

d 2 











































irepi or nep. 






















Where the expanded word has not been accented in the above 
list, it is to be understood that the abbreviation is used for the 
syllable in question when it occurs as part of a word, as well as 
when it stands by itself or (in the case of prepositions) in com- 
position : e.g. avayKov, yfyfvrfpos. 

In addition to these there are occasional abbreviations of 
the terminations of words : e. g. o-TpaTTjy" for arpaTqyos, pax for pdxiv, 
yevea^ for yevea-Bai. These are, however, rarely used, and present 
no difficulty. 

It may be mentioned that in three cases accents are found in 
the MS., and in two cases breathings. eKp^prvpav (col. 3, 1. 9) 
and vopo<pv\aKelv (col. 3, 1. 26) have circumflex accents, & (col. 12, 
1. 3) has a rough breathing of an angular shape, and riyavrm (col. 
13, 1. 11) has both rough breathing and circumflex accent. The 
first three cases occur in the first of the four hands in which the 
MS. is written ; the last is an addition to the second hand, 
presumably by the person who has corrected that hand through- 
out, VIZ. the writer of the first hand. 


I. . . . [M]J/)a)i'o$' KaB^ lepmv o^iocravTes apia-riv- 
8r]v. KarayvaxrOevTos 8e tov ayo[i']y [j/e/c/jjoi fiev 

Ch. I. The opening words evidently belong to a narrative of the 
revolutionary attempt of Cylon and its consequences. The date of 
this attempt has always been doubtful. We know from Herodotus 
(V. 71) that Cylon was an Olympic victor, and his victory is placed by 
Africanus in 640 B.C. It is also certain that his attempt was made in 
an Olympic year ; but it has generally been assumed that it occurred 
after the legislation of Draco, whose date is given by Jerome as 
621 B. c, and it is therefore usually placed in the chronologies at 620 
or 616 B.C. The assumption is natural, from the way in which 
Plutarch (who certainly had Aristotle's work before him in writing his 
life of Solon) brings the attempt of Cylon into connection with the 
career of Solon, making the visit of Epimenides to purify the city occur 
only shortly before Solon's legislation and long after the career of the 
latter as a public man had begun. Plutarch does not, however, 
mention how long a time intervened between the slaughter of the 
accomplices of Cylon and the expiation effected by the expulsion of 
the Alcmaeonidae and the purification by Epimenides ; and the present 
work makes it certain that the date of Cylon is anterior to that of 
Draco. This is probable on other grounds. The attempt of Cylon is 
spoken of as that of a young man, aided by companions of his own 
age (irpotxnoLrja'dfj.evos €Taiprjtr}v Tav rjXtKLWTetoVj Herod. /. c.) ; whereas a 
man who had won an Olympic victory in 640 B. C. would be a middle- 
aged man in 620 or 616 B. c. Moreover, according to Plutarch's own 
narrative (Solon, 12) it is clear that sufficient time had elapsed before 
the expulsion of the Alcmaeonidae for the party of Cylon, which had 
at the time been nearly exterminated, to recover strength and carry on 
a vigorous feud with its opponents. It is therefore probable that the 



€/c Ta>v Td(f)a)V e^e^X'qdrjaav, to 8e yevos avrav 
e(f)vy€i> aeK^vyiav. ['ETTij/LieviSi;? 5' 6]s eiri 
TOVTOis eKadrjpe rrjv ttoXlv. 

2. Mera 5e ravra crvvefirj aTaaiaaaL tovs T€ yvco- 
pifiovs Kol TO ttXtjOos TToXiiv \p6vov *Tov Sfjpov*. rjv 
yap . . .7] TToXiTeia t[ois pev\ aXXois oXiyapx^Krj Traan, 
Kol 8ri Koi iSovXevov ot Trevr]Te[g tols] irXovaioLS kol 

attempt of Cylon should be placed about the year 632 B. c, or 628 B. c. 
at the latest. Whether the date of the visit of Epimenides, which is 
assigned to about 596 B. c, should be altered is another matter. Aris- 
totle in the present passage may very probably be merely carrying 
on the narrative of the rising of Cylon to its conclusion, and the words 
fiera be toCto which follow may easily refer to the attempt itself and 
not to the visit of Epimenides. Plutarch, with Aristotle before him, 
is not likely to have made so gross a mistake as to assign to the life- 
time of Solon (with whom he states Epimenides to have associated 
freely) an event which occurred before the legislation of Draco. The 
feud arising out of the Kvkaveiov ayas (the memories of which were 
still active in Greece at the period of the outbreak of the Peloponnesian 
war) had evidently lasted for a considerable time before the expulsion 
of the Alcmaeonidae ; and it was not till some years after this that the 
visit of Epimenides took place. 

Miipaivos : Myron is mentioned by Plutarch as the accuser of the 
Alcmaeonidae at the trial to which Solon persuaded them to submit. 
The word apia-rivSrjv occurs in the same passage (KpidTJvm rpiaKoaimv 
dpia-TivSt]v biKaiovrav), referring to the selection of the judges on that 

KaTayvaxrBtirros : this has been corrected in the MS. to KaBapQivros, 
but the tense and the context seem to make the original word preferable. 

i< rSnv raipav i^e^XrjQrjcrav : both Thucydides (I. 126) and Plutarch 
(/. c.) mention the disinterment of the bones of the members of the 
Alcmaeonid clan who had died since the affair of Cylon. 

dei<f)vyiav : cf. Plat. Legg, 877 C, (^cuyeVo) dtv^vy'iav. 

'Emp^iii8r)s : c/. Plutarch, /. c. 

2. Tov b^pov : these words are superfluous and are probably a gloss 
on TO 'Tr'KrjBos which has crept into the text. 

fboiXevov : in earlier times, according to Herodotus (VI. 137), there 
were no slaves (oiVeVat) in Attica ; but he is speaking of the time when 
the Pelasgian community living under Hymettus was still independent. 
As at Rome, so in Attica, the pressure of debt very early brought the 
poorest class of the community into a position of serfdom, if not of 


avTol [kol rja r^Kva koL at yvvaiKcs, koI eKaXovvTo 
TreXarai kol iKTrj/xopoi' [eVi] ravTrjs yap rrjs jXLa- 
Oaxrecos [ei]/)yafoj/ro rav ttXovctlcov tovs aypovs. 
7] 8e Traara yrf di oXiymv ^v kol [el firj] ras fii(T- 
Owaeis [a7r]o8i8o7ev aycoyifioi kol avroi Koi 01 TraiSes 
cyivouTo, /c[at deSe/Jievot roty Saveicr\a(ni> eVt TOty 
acop.aaLV rjaav p-^XP'- ^oXcovos' ovtos 5e irpwTos kyi- 
v\eTO Tov 8r]fjLovj TrpoaTOLTTjs. )(aX€7ra)TaTov pev odu 
Kai TTiKporaTOv rjv roty ttoXXols tSsv Kara rijs 
TToXiTeias [apxi^v p.rj p.€T\ex^LV- ov prjv dXXa /cat 
eTTt roty aXXois iSvax^patvov ovdevos yap, wy 
fhreiv, irvyxavov /xereT^oirey. 

3. 'Hj/ 5' t} ra^ty r^y apx^l-OiS iroXtTetas T-qs irpo 
ApaKo[vTos TOiavTT}]. ray p.ev dpxas [tjcrrao-ai' 
apicTTLvSrjv Ka\ irXovTivBrjV VPX^^ ^^ [™] M^^ 

TteXdrai Koi eVrTj/idpot : Photius quotes Aristotle as his authority for 
the word TreXdrai, which he explains as 01 jxicrQa SovXevovres, cnel to 
TTe'Xat eyyis, mov eyyiara bia irfviav npoaiovrfs, and again as oi irapa rois 
jr\rj(riov ipya^ofievoi' Ka\ B^res oi airoi Kai eKrr//idpoi, fweiSfi (Ktco fiipn 
rS>v Kapn&v elpya^ovro tijv yrjv. Cf. also Pollux III. 82, ■nekdrai Se Koi drJTcs 
iXfvBipav iariv ovojxaTa dia nfviav in apyvplat hovkevovrav and IV. 165, 
cKrrjp.6poi,oi neXdrai napa tois 'AttikoXs. exTij/idpot, not fKTrjuopioi, seems to 
be the proper form. neXdrai is also used to represent the Latin dientes 
in Plut. Rom. 13 etc. Plutarch has drawn from this passage of 
Aristotle in his description of the state of things immediately before 
the legislation of Solon (Sol. 13). See Rose's Fragmenta, frag. 351. 

fieSefieVot Totf Savei(ra(nv : the reading is largely conjectural, and the 
whole expression is rather unusual ; but it will bear the sense required 
and is in accordance with the traces remaining- visible in the MS. 
SeSepiivoi is moreover confirmed by the parallel expression at the end 
of ch. 4. For the phrase eVt rois cra>fia<nv cf. Plutarch, /. c. 

TOV S^jxov Trpoa-Tdrr)! : this title, an echo from a later time, but still 
having a legitimate meaning as 'champion of the people,' is again 
applied to Solon, together with Pisistratus, Cleisthenes, and others, 
in ch. 28. 

3. ^pxov Se TO iih TTpSiTov del: the reading of the MS. is somewhat 
doubtful, owing to the faintness of the writing, but enough remains to 
make the words given in the text nearly certain. The noticeable 

B a 


7r/)o>[roi'] d^ei'], fiera 8e ravra [Se/cajertaf. fieyia-Tai 
8e KoX irpmraL tS>v dp^mv rjcrav ^aayXevs re k(u 

point is the combination of the mention of election i^itrraxrav dpio-nvSriv 
Kai nXovTtvSnv) with the retention of office for life. This must refer to 
the period of the Medontidae, a period at present involved in great 
obscurity. It has been generally agreed that the stories told of the 
alterations in the constitution after the death of Codrus imply some 
limitation of the kingly power ; and the present passage does some- 
thing to elucidate the point. It is probably not the case (see the fol- 
lowing note) that the title of king was abolished ; but it seems certain 
that the powers of the king were considerably altered, and that for a 
hereditary and nearly autocratic monarchy was substituted an elective 
life-magistracy confined to the members of the kingly house, with whom 
were joined, in varying degrees of subordination, a Polemarch and an 
Archon. How this is to be reconciled with the tradition of the grati- 
tude of the Athenians to Codrus is another matter; but we may perhaps 
connect with it the story of the dispute which arose as to the succession 
of the lame Medon and the consequent secession of a large body of 
emigrants who led the Ionian colonisation of Asia Minor. In them we 
may see the malcontents who were unwilling to accept the new regime ; 
and even the ' lameness ' of Medon may be only the traditional repre- 
sentation of the mutilated character of the monarchy enjoyed by him. 
irpwTai Twv dpxav : this account of the origin of the archon's office 
differs from that which has hitherto been generally accepted. In the 
absence of other evidence the legendary account has naturally been 
adopted, to the effect that the rule of the kings was followed first 
by that of the Medontidae, who held office for life but without the title 
of king, and perhaps with some limitation of authority, and then 
by decennial archons possessing the same powers but subject to the 
limit of time ; and that this was again followed by the creation of 
a board of nine archons, who shared among them the powers of the 
single ruler. From the account of Aristotle it appears that the office of 
Polemarch dates back to the period of the kings, at which time, 
however, it would amount to no more than the position of a commander- 
in-chief under an unwarlike sovereign. The office of tlpxav came into 
existence in the time either of Medon or of Acastus, z. e. at the beginning 
of the rule of the Medontidae. At this time, however, says Aristotle, 
the office was of comparatively little importance, and was inferior to 
both the ^aa-iXiis and the iroXipapxos, and it was only at a later period 
that the npxwv took precedence of these magistrates. This throws 
some light on the constitutional change which took place after the 
death of Codrus. It would appear that in effect the rule of a board 
of three was substituted for that of a monarch, or at least that two other 
magistrates were elevated to positions which detracted considerably 
from the autocratic authority of the titular governor. It seems, howr 


TroXYfiapyps kol ap^covy tovtcov 8e ttp^cotJt} p.€v y 
Tov ^aertAecoy, avrrj yap eV [apx^ iyeuero, Sevjrepa 
8' iiTLKaTia-TT} [7roXe])U.a^xta Blol tov yl^v^ea-Oai rivas 
rau ^aaikecov to, iroXefiia fiaX^aKovs, o6ev /call 
TOV 'Icova /iere[7re/x]\^ai'ro ^etafy KlaTaXa^ovcrrjs. 

ever, that the old tradition that the name of king gave place to that of 
archon is inaccurate. There is other evidence tending to show that the 
title of ^aoiKevs Still continued in use {c/. Abbott's History of Greece, 
I. 286, quoting Pausanias, I. iii. 3), and this passage of Aristotle makes 
it practically certain. The /SaaiXt us still continued to rule for life, but 
associated with him were the Polemarch and the Archon. There 
is no evidence to show how long the term of ofiSce was in their case, 
but it may be conjectured that they were magistrates elected for a term 
of years by and from the Eupatrid aristocracy. The term aipeo-is used 
below may, no doubt, refer only to a later period ; but if, as has been 
shown in the preceding note, the king himself was at this time elective, 
it is very probable that the inferior oflScers would be so also. Later, 
when the kingly rule was entirely abolished, the apx'^" (who no doubt 
did not previously bear the title of fVmi/u/nos) took the first place in 
dignity ; and hence, when Aristotle is dealing with the magistrates of 
his own day, the Archon takes precedence of the fiaaiKevs and the 
Polemarch (ch. 55). The abolition of the title of king as that of the 
chief magistrate of the state probably took place when the decennial 
system was established. The name was then retained only for 
sacrificial and similar reasons, and, to mark the fact that the kingly 
rule was actually at an end, the magistrate bearing the title was 
degraded to the second position, while the Archon, whose name 
naturally suggested itself as the best substitute for that of king, was 
promoted to the titular headship of the state. Dates would then be 
indicated by the year of the archon, as previously by the year of the 
reigning king ; and when the office was made annual the Archon 
became in the full sense of the term ewawfios, the magistrate from 
whose name the year was called. The Thesmothetae, as Aristotle 
proceeds to state, only came into existence at this last-named period, 
after the abolition of the decennial system (682 B.C.). 

"lava: according to the legend Ion, who was ruling over the 
Aegialeis, came to the assistance of his grandfather Erechtheus in his 
war with Eumolpus of Eleusis, and was made commander-in-chief of 
the Athenians. Herodotus alludes to it, and gives him the title of 
inpaTapxni (VIII. 44) ; and a scholiast on Aristophanes {Birds 1527) 
actually calls him Polemarch, vaTpaou Sc np.Sxni' 'AnoWcova 'A.6r)valoi, 
fVei "lajv o iroXepapxos 'ABrjvaiav e'i 'AnoWavos Koi Kpeovaijs rrjs Sou^ou 
[yv^/aiKos] iyivero. 


reXevraia 8' rj \tov ap\ovTos' ot] p.€v yap irX^iovs [eVi] 
MeSofTOf, hiOL 5' eVt 'Kkolo-tov (paal yevicrOai \Tr\V 
apyj]v' (TT^/u.eioi'] 5' i7n(f)€povcrt.v [oTi] ol iuvea ap)(OVTesf 
ojxvvovcn [KaOaTrep] eVi 'AKacrrov [rrjf iroXecos ap)(\€LV, 
eof €7rt Trjs i\K€ivov\ fiaa-tXeias irapa^cop-qcravTcov 
tS)v Ko5[/Ot5dji'] . . . rm ap^ovTL *8a)peav*. tovto 
p.€v odv OTTOTepoos TTOV €)(ei p-LKpov, [/Cttt kyiv€TO 8rj 
iv tov]tois Tols )(p6vois' OTI \8e\ TeXevraia tovt(ov 

lyev€TO Twv dp^au, [crrj^elov kol picov 

Tov dp^ovra 8iotK€tv axnrep 6 fiaaiXevs Kai o TroXe- 

p,ap\os, dXXa 8lo kuI vecoo-rl yiyovev rj dp-xjj 

peydXrj, tols e7r[i]^eVoiy av^r}0[€?aa. 0€a\p.o0€TaL 8e 
7roAAo[r]? varepov ereaiv ypedrjaav, rj8y} /car iuiavTov 
alp\e6evTes eVt] rds dpyas, oiroas dvaypa<^avTes ra 
Oeapiia (pvXaTTCoai Trpos ttjv tS)v [7rapavop,ov]vTcov 
KpiaiV 8lo kol p,6vr] rau dp^wv ovk eyevero irXeicov 
[rj'\ iviava-Los. \ovToi\ pev odv [is] toctovtov irpoe^ov' 
(TLV dXXcov. wKrjcrav 8' ov^ oipa Travres ol iuvea 

aWa . . . : at the end of the hiatus the letters t ra or eya are visible. 

avaypa-^avT€s : hitherto, apparently, judicial decisions had not been 
recorded, and consequently there was no stability in the administration 
of justice. The Thesmothetae therefore received their name not merely 
from the fact that they made law by administering it (Thirlwall, II. 
17 : Did. Ant. art. Archon), but from being the first to lay it down in 
written decisions. There was therefore some written basis of law 
before the time of Draco ; but his legislation was no doubt required 
in order to give the archons fixed principles to work on and to secure 
uniformity of administration. Judges' law requires a substratum of 
fixed and codified law on which to work. 

hXXcoi' (c.t.X. : the MS. reading here is aXXjjwj'ijo-uj', a corruption 
of which the reading given in the text seems the most probable 

(aKi\aav k.t.\. : cf. Suid. S. V, tipxav : npo fiiv tS>v SoXoivos vofimv ovk 
e'^^v avTois a/ia ^ixd^fiv, dXX' 6 fiiv /SacriXevc Kadrjaro napa t<S KnXov/xfVqi 
BovKoXib)' TO 8e ^v TrXijCTioi/ TOV UpvTavdov' 6 8e TroXf/ttopX"* ^^ Au/ceio), Koi 
o Spf(av napa tovs eircopviiovs, koL ol Bca-fiodiTai jrapa to QetTjUtSeteiov, 


ap^ovTes, dXX' 6 fiev ^aaiXevs ^\J}x'^ "^^ ^^^ Kokov- 
fievov BovKoXtov, TrXrjcriov rov UpvTaveiov (a-rjfj.eiov 
Se' ert /cat pvu yap rrjs tov fiaaiXecos yvvaiKos rj 
avfifiL^is ivravda yiverai tS Aiovvaco kol 6 yap,os), 
6 fie ap-)(cov TO Hpytavelov, 6 Se iroXipiap^os to 
^TriXvKeioV o irpoTepov fxev c/caAeiro YloXefJMp^elov, 
eTret Se 'EttlXvkos avcoKodofXTjae /cat KaTeaKevaaev 
avTO 7roX€ixa[p^r]\(Ta9 '^TrtXvKelov eKXrjOrj' deafio- 
OeTai 8' ei^ov to QeafiodeTelov. eVt 8e ^oXcovos 
a^TrjauTes eiy to Qea-p-odeTeiov avvrfXOov. KvpioL 8' 
■qcrav KOL Tas Slkus avTOTcXels [/c/JiVJetJ/, /cat ov^ 

(Rose, ed. 1886, iv'ag'. 413). The residence of the Archon is here 
described as napa rois iircavviiovs, whereas Aristotle says that he 
occupied the Prytaneum. The two accounts are not irreconcileable. 
The statues of the eponymous heroes stood close to the Prytaneum 
(Schol. Aristoph. Pax 1 1 83, rorros itapa jrpvraveiov ev <o earriKaiTiv 
dv^pidvTfs oils fvcovvfjiovs KaXoviriv), and if the Archon occupied a 
wing of the Prytaneum adjoining these statues both descriptions will 
be satisfied. 

rris TOV ^aa-iXems yvvaiKos : the wife of the king-archon, who was 
called BacriXivva or fiaa-iXia-aa, always went through the ceremony of 
marriage to the god Dionysus at the feast of the Anthesteria. C/. 
Dem. contr. Neaer. c. 76, p. 137 1. 

TO 'ETrtXuKfioi' : it has generally been supposed that the Polemarch 
occupied the Lyceum, on the strength of the passage of Suidas quoted 
above. Hesychius, indeed, under the word imXvKetov describes it as 
the residence of the Polemarch ; but this has generally been written 
as two words, eiri Avkciov, and explained in accordance with Suidas. 
The words of Aristotle, however, show that there was a separate 
building called the Epilyceum, It does not follow that his version of 
the origin of its name is correct, and the ' polemarch Epilycus ' looks 
suspiciously like a traditional invention to account for the name. It 
is more probable that the building was in the neighbourhood of the 
Lyceum and derived its name from that fact. 

Kvpioi 8' riaav : cf. Suidas, /. C, Kvpiol re ^(rav atrre ras SiKas avToreXeis 
iroieiadai, varepov Se SoKtovos oiSev erepov avrois reXeirai ij /lovov viro- 
Kplvovm Totis avTtSiKovs. It is possible, in the light of this passage, that 
the verb here should be read as noieh instead of Kptveiv ; but the active 
is less suitable for such a sense than the middle, and xpiveiv cor- 
responds better with npoavaKpU'eiv. 


axnrep vvv irpoavaKpiveLV. to. fieu o5v [jreptj ras 
ap-)(a.s TovTov ei^e top rpoirov. rj 8e rav Apeo- 
irayeiTcov ^ovXrj rrjv fxlv rd^iu et;(e rod Siarrjpeli^ 

f) tS>u 'Apfoirayeniov ^ovXrj : this passage is important, as bearing on 
the origin and early existence of the Areopagus, Plutarch (So/. 19) 
mentions that most persons believed Solon to have been the founder 
of that council, but in disproof of this statement quotes the fact that 
the Areopagus is referred to in one of Solon's own laws as already 
existing. The reference to it in the Politics as the oligarchical 
element in Solon's mixed constitution {Pol. ii. 12) is no argument 
against its preexistence ; Solon made the constitution a mixed one by 
adding a democratical element to the oligarchical and aristocratical 
ones already existing. The present passage makes it clear that, in 
Aristotle's opinion, the Areopagus not only existed before Solon and 
before Draco, but that it was even at that time composed of those who 
had held the office of archon, and that it was in reality the central 
force in the administration. Its position appears, indeed, to be 
analogous to that of the senate in the best period of the Roman 
republic. It represented a governing aristocratical council, electing 
(as appears from an almost certain conjecture in ch. 8) the archons, 
who entered its body after serving their year of office ; and its weight, 
as containing all the official experience of the state, must have given 
it at least as much influence over the annual magistrates who expected 
shortly to become members of it as the Roman senate held over the 
consuls. It seems entirely unnecessary to suppose that there was any 
other council in existence before the time of Draco. The court of 300 
which tried the Alcmaeonidae in the case of Cylon was clearly a 
special court for a special purpose ; and the council of the same 
number which Cleomenes and Isagoras attempted to set up in 508 B.C. 
was only a revolutionary substitute for the existing council of 400 (or 
of 500, if the reform of Cleisthenes had already been actually carried 
out, which seems improbable). At what time the method of recruiting 
the Areopagus from the ex-archons was adopted, or what was its 
character before that date, it is impossible to say with certainty ; but 
common sense and analogy make it probable that originally it was a 
council of elders summoned by the king. It is not impossible that all 
heads of yivr\ may have had a traditional right to a summons, which 
would fix the total number at 360 ; but it is highly improbable that 
they had any absolute right, as such councils in early times almost 
always rested on the will of the sovereign. But when the monarchy 
was abolished there was no individual to whom the duty of nominating 
the governing council could fitly be entrusted, and the automatic 
process of forming it from all ex-archons was therefore probably put 
into operation from the date of the establishment of the annual 


Tovs vojxovs, SicoKei Se to. irXela-Ta kol to, fieyicTTa 
Twv iu TYJ TToXei, Kol KoXd^ovaa Koi ^rjfji^Lojvara 
iravras tovs aKoa-fiovvTas Kvpicos. rj yap atpecns 
Tmv apypvToav apKTTivBrjv kcu TrXovTivSrjv -qv, e^ wv 
OL ApeoTrayelrai KaOiaTavTO. Sto kol /xovrj twv ap^wv 
avT-q p.€p.evrjKe Sia ^lov kol vvv. 

4. 'H p.€v odv irpcoTT] TroXiTeia ravr-qv ^\}\x'^ '''W 
i)7ro^ypaj(f)r]v. fiera 8e ravra, ^(^povov tlvos ov ttoXXov 
SieXdovTO^, en ' ApiaTai^fiov ap)(ovT09 Apd^^Kcojv rovt 
Oea-fiovs edrjKev rj 8e tcc^ls avrr] rouSe top rpoirov ei^e. 
aTreSeSoTO [^] TroXiTeia toIs oTrAa Trape-)(OfxtvoLS' 

archonships, though it would of course be many years before the 
council came to be composed solely of those who had served this 

4. iit" hpiaraixiiov apxovTos : the name is not otherwise known. It is 
to be observed that Draco was not archon eponymus at the time of his 
legislative reforms, as has been commonly supposed. The phrase of 
Pausanias (IX. 36, 8) ApaxovTos 'Adrjvniois 6e(Tfio6eTiiijavT05 may possibly 
indicate that he was one of the junior archons, though it is not 
necessary so to interpret the word. 

aiTf&iboTo f) TToXiTfi'a Tols oTrKa jrape^onevots : this passage throws a 
completely new light on the legislation of Draco, and shows that he 
was not merely a jurist but also a political reformer. It is, moreover, 
absolutely opposed to the statement in Pol. II. 12, that Draco made no 
change in the constitution (no^iTcla S' innp^ovtrr) roiis vojiovs fdr/Kf), and 
makes it additionally certain that that chapter is not Aristotle's. The 
readings of the present passage are doubtful in several cases, but the 
general drift is clear. A certain share in the government was given to 
all persons capable of providing themselves with a military equipment, 
a definition which would probably include the first three of the so-called 
' Solonian ' classes (see below, where all three are mentioned as liable 
to fines for failure in public duties). It is probable, however, that this 
share was at first considerably limited. There was a property quali- 
fication for the various offices, differing in amount according to their 
importance ; and this would secure the predominance of the wealthy 
classes in the higher posts. Moreover the poorest class, which was 
probably also the largest, had not even the avayKaioTarrj Sivafus which 
was afterwards assigned to it by Solon. On the other hand both the 
property classification (though not necessarily its employment for 
constitutional purposes, c/. note on TifujuaTa, ch. 7), and the creation 


rfpovvTO Be tovs fiev kvvia apypvra^ [xai t\ovs [rjayiitay 
ovaiav KCKTrjfievovs ovk eXaTTCo SeKU fiuav iXevdepav, 

of the Council of Four Hundred, which have hitherto been assigned to 
Solon on the direct evidence of Plutarch and others, are here declared 
to belong to the time of Draco ; and the latter, if not the former, was 
evidently his own creation. Moreover if the word KKrjpova-Bai is to be 
used in its strict sense (and it is unlikely that Aristotle would use a 
technical word otherwise), the institution of the lot must also be 
assigned to Draco, though its employment was probably limited to the 
election of the new Council, and perhaps some other inferior offices. 
Aristotle does not say what the duties of the ^ovXi] were. As the 
Ecclesia is mentioned below, the Council may already have had 
something of its later probouleutic functions ; but it is not likely 
that the Ecclesia had much important business entrusted to it yet. 
Perhaps the less important details of government and the manage- 
ment of elections were delegated to it, but it cannot have been 
intended to exercise any very important powers. The Areopagus, on 
the other hand, retained all its former authority, with powers of control 
over all the magistrates and a general right of revision of legal decisions 
on appeal. In short it still remained the central force in the state, and 
in this fact the gist of the Draconian constitution lies. With the intro- 
duction of several distinct steps in the direction of popularising the 
constitution, the balance of power is nevertheless unaltered. This 
explains the otherwise strange fact, that no other extant author has 
mentioned the legislation of Draco from any other point of view than 
the legal one, and that his position as a constitutional reformer was 
evidently forgotten in later times. The first definite shifting of the 
balance of power occurred under Solon, and consequently all the 
details which were worked into his system were ascribed to him, 
though some of them had actually come into existence twenty or thirty 
years before. Nevertheless it is strange that Plutarch, who certainly 
was acquainted with Aristotle's work, should have attributed the 
property qualification and the institution of the /SouX^ to Solon ; but 
perhaps in writing the biography of the latter he preferred to adopt 
the traditional account of his legislation. 

It is furthemoticeable that Aristotle says nothing of the legal code 
which is the best-known work of Draco. No doubt the present treatise 
is primarily constitutional, not legal, and therefore reforms in judicial 
procedure and criminal law have no direct place in it ; but at the same 
time it is so far historical that one would have expected some allusion 
to facts so well known, and which have, moreover, some bearing on 
the transition from the autocratic to the popular method of government 
at Athens. 

Tols on\a napexofiivois : the same qualification was revived at the 
deposition of the Four Hundred in 411 B.C., and under this constitution 


raf 5' aXXas ap^as eXdrrovs e/c tmv oTrXa 7rapex[ofie- [Col. 2.] 
va)v\, arpaTTjyovs fie kol iTTTra/j^ouf ovcriav airocpaivov- 
Tas ovK iXuTTOv r) eKarov pvav eXeuOepcov kol TuaiSas 
e[/c] yap.€TrJ9 yvvaiKos yvqaiovs virep ScKa ett] yeyovo- 
ras' TOVTOvs 5e 8€l\y etj/at] tovs irpvraveis kol tov9 
(TTpar-qyovs kol tov9 Imrap^ovs tov yevovs p-^XP'- 
€v6vvS>v .... Tas 8' eK tov avrov reXous 8e)(opivovs 
ovirep OL (TTpaTTjyol kol ol hrirap-^^oL. iSovXeveiu 8e 


KXrjpova-dat 8e kol TavTrjv kol [ra]p aA[Aay] ap)(as 

Thucydides affirms (VIII. 97) Athens to have enjoyed the best govern- 
ment within his memory ; a favourable judgment which is repeated by 
Aristotle {infra, ch. 33). 

apxovTas: MS. apxovres, obviously a mere slip. 

i\ev6ipav : i. e. free of all encumbrances. The writing of the MS. 
in this and the following lines is very faint, but the readings are 
tolerably certain. 

kKaTov pxav : it seems extraordinary that the property qualification 
for a strategus should be 100 minae, while that for the archons was 
only 10 minae. It is possible that in these early times strategi were 
only elected when they were required, i. e. in case of war, and then no 
doubt it would be desirable to secure men of special competence. 
Moreover it might have been difficult to find enough persons possessing 
a qualification so high to provide nine archons a year ; while the 
strategi, even if appointed yearly, would not have been more than 
four in number at the outside, one for each tribe. The number ten of 
course belongs only to the time after the reforms of Cleisthenes. 

hew : the first three letters of this word, which alone are visible, are 
a correction, the word originally written beginning with fit. 

TeTpaKo<riovs Koi €va : this addition of a single member in order to 
secure an uneven number in an assembly is paralleled by the StKaanjpta 
of later times, but was not retained by Solon in his reorganisation of 
the Council. Apparently under the Draconian system the members 
were selected by lot from the whole body of citizens (e/c t^s noKireias), 
in which case the odd number presented no difficulty; whereas the 
Solonian Council was chosen equally from the four tribes. 

Koi Tas aXKas dpxds : this cannot mean that all the magistrates were 
henceforth elected by lot, as we know that the archons were not so 
elected till a later period (cf. infra, ch. 22), and the same must certainly 
have been the case with the other more important offices. The passage 


Toiis inrep TpiaKOPra err] yeyovoras, kcu Sis top avrou 
fjLTj ap^eiv irpo rov irdvT^s Trept^eXdelv Tore 8e 
7raA[tj/] i^ V7rap)(rjs KXrjpovv. el 8e tls twv ^ovXevTcov, 
OTav e8pa ^ovXt]s r] eKKXrja-ias y, e/cAewroi ^rrju (rvvjo- 

merely means that the Council and those magistrates who were chosen 
by lot were chosen from persons of the stated age, t. e. over thirty. 

TpiaKnvra : MS. rpiaKovB, It is probable that this limit of age con- 
tinued in force in later times, though it is nowhere directly stated 
except as regards the members of the Council (Xen. Mem. I. 2. 35) 
and the dicasts (ch. 63 of this treatise, Poll. VIII. 122) ; but these 
instances in themselves make it probable that the same restriction 
applied to other magistracies, and the present passage tends to support 
this view. (Cf. Meier, Att. Proc. p. 204, Schomann, Ant. Jur. Pub. 
p. 238). 

fKKkr\a\.ai : this is the first mention of the existence of this body, and 
raises the question as to its original character. It has been commonly 
supposed that it existed from the earliest times, and that it represented 
the general meetings which we find mentioned in the Homeric poems. 
It has further been held that it elected the officers of state and was 
consulted on questions of peace and war, and that reforms in a popular 
direction, such as the appointments of Draco and Solon to re-model 
the constitution, were due to its action (cf. Abbott, I. p. 301). As to the 
existence of some such body befoj-e the time of Draco, it may reasonably 
be argued that, were it otherwise, the institution of it would probably 
have been mentioned here, as that of the ^ovXj] is. But it seems certain 
that it did not exist in any effective shape. The analogy of the English 
constitution may show that the primitive consultation of the tribal or 
national assembly may practically disappear, or be represented only by 
the summoning of a council of nobles, until the people acquires sufficient 
strength to demand an effective voice in the state. The discontent of 
the lower orders, necessitating some measure of reform to pacify them, 
finds its expression in early times in o-Tao-ir rather than by constitutional 
means. It was ordo-ir, which needed no Ecclesia for its expression, 
which forced on the reforms of Draco and of Solon. Elections, as we 
know from ch. 8, were in the hands of the Areopagus. Even in the 
case of war there is no necessity to suppose the consultation of a 
popular assembly. The army was formed by contingents from the 
various tribal divisions, and the domination of the aristocracy was 
so great as to make it very unlikely that there would be any 
effective resistance from the people, except when extreme exasperation 
provoked a araai.1, and then no doubt the inability of the governing 
class to form an army in the case of a foreign attack or the revolt 
of a dependency was a powerful inducement to them to come to terms 
with the lower orders. There may, however, have been some gathering 


Sou, UTreTLVov 6 /xev ■7revTaK0a-10fjLe81.iJ.v09 rpels Spa^- 
fids, 6 [8e [JTrirevs Svo, ^evytrrjs 8e fiiav. rj 8e ^ovXr/ 
■f] e^ 'Apeiov irayov (f)vXa^ rjv rav voficov kuI 8ieTT^p[et, 
rajs apyas oirws Kara tovs v6p.ovs apyaaiv. e^rjv 8e 
Tw a8iKovixevcp irpo^s rrjv twv'] ' KpeoirayeLT\a)v'\ fiov- 
Xrjv eiaayyeXXeLV aTro(f>a[vovTL Trap' ov a8iKeiTat 
vopLOv. evL 8e rots aa)\}jia\(riv rjaav 8e8ep.evoi, 
KaOairep e'lprjTai, kcu t] xdipa. 81 oXiycov rfv. 

5. ToiayrT/y 8e ttjs ra^ecos ovarjs ev ry TroXiTeia 
Kai Twv [7r]oXXav 8ovXev6vTcov rots oXiyois, dvTea-rrj 
Tois yvatpLfxois 6 8rjp.o9. l(r\vpds 8e tt]9 arda-ecos 
ovarjs /cat 7roA[i'i'] ■)(p6vov dvTiKa6r}p.evcov dXXrjXois 
eiXovTo Koivfj 8iaXXaKT7]v kcu dp^ovra ^oXcova, kcu 

of the people before military service known as an ecclesia, which will 
account for the omission to notice the creation of such a body by 
Draco ; but it was Draco who took the first step towards making it an 
important part of the constitution. He made all persons capable of 
furnishing a military equipment members of it, and to them was 
apparently committed the election of the officers of state ; and though 
it is not likely that any other business of real importance was delegated 
to it, and the Areopagus still retained the general direction of affairs, 
yet the Ecclesia was henceforth an integral portion of the state and 
capable of the development which was effected by Solon and subse- 
quent statesmen. 

dweripov k.t.X. . fines for non-attendance at official duties are charac- 
teristic of the earlier part of Athenian history alone, as they naturally 
cease with the establishment of payment for attendance. As Boeckh 
{Public Economy of the Athenians, bk. III. ch. 12) shows, in the time 
of Solon the fines were usually very small ; thus a person convicted of 
using abusive language in public was fined only five drachmas under 
the laws of Solon, whereas in later times the fine was 500 drachmas. 
In comparison with this scale a fine of one to three drachmas for 
missing a meeting of the Council or Assembly appears high. 

em 8e rots (ro>iJiacnv rjcrav SeSf/tieVoi : in this fact lies the explanation 
of the failure of Draco's legislation to remove the distress existing in 
Attica. Though a large class of persons who had hitherto had no part 
in the state were now admitted to a share in elections and a chance of 
service in certain posts, yet the labouring class were in no way touched 
by this reform, and their economical condition was in no way improved. 


T[r]v 7roXi]Tet,[a]v eTrerpe'^au avT^ Troi'^cravTi Trjv 
iXeyeiav ^s ia-riv apxV 

Tlv(o[<tkcS\, KaC fjioi (j)pevo's €vSo0ev aXyea fceiTai, 
TTpea-jSvTdT'qv icropav yaXav 'laofias. 

Ktti yap eTrriXavvev Koi irpos eKarepovs vwep eKarepcov 
p.dxeTai Koi biap.(^La^r]T€i, kcu p-era ravra Koiujj 
[irlapaivel [KaraJTraveiu rrjv ivea-racrau ^ikoviKiav. 
r]v 8' 6 ^oXcou rfj p,ev prja^L kou ry So^y t&v irpcoTcov, 
r[^ S"] oixTia Kot Tols Trpaypacn tS>v p-eacov, a>s ck re 

It was not until Solon had relieved them of their pecuniary burdens, 
and had admitted them to at least a slight control over the admini- 
stration, till Cleisthenes and the reformers of the first half of the fifth 
century had made that control effective, till pay was given for public 
service, and the large increase of the slave class had relieved them of 
the greater part of the manual labour necessary in the country, that 
the democracy could become fully established. In the time of Draco, 
however, most of these changes would have been premature and 
impracticable ; but one evil did call emphatically for remedy, namely 
the economical condition of the labouring class, and it was this which 
made the legislation of Solon necessary within a few years of the 
reforms of Draco. 

S-TroDjo-ai/Ti Tqv eXeyeiav: in this part of his work Aristotle has 
preserved considerable fragments of the poetry of Solon. Many of 
them are already known through having been transferred by Plutarch 
to his life of Solon and through quotations in other authors. The 
couplet given here is, however, an addition to the remains previously 
extant. It appears to belong to the poem on the state of Athens of 
which a considerable portion is quoted by Demosthenes, de Fals. Leg. c. 
255, PP- 421-3 (Bergk, Frag. 3). As there quoted, the beginning is 
clearly wanting. It may be noticed that the manner in which Aristotle 
tells the story seems to indicate that this political poem of Solon was the 
direct cause of his nomination as SiaWnKrij?, which may be so far true 
that the publication of it may have called attention to his patriotism 
and political moderation at the critical moment ; but he was of course 
already a well-known citizen {cf. infra, rg fio'f ij tSiv trpwrcov). 

Koi yap iirfiKavvev ital : the reading is very doubtful, with the ex- 
ception of the first koi. 

<piKoi/iKiai/ : corrected in the MS. from <|)i\oTi/iiai'. The speUing of 
the MS. has been followed, as against the alternative form (piKoveiKtav. 

TrpayiMdi : i. e. ' position in life,' not ' ability in affairs.' 


Twv aXXcou ofioXoyeiTai kol [avros] ev TolaSe tois 
Troirjfiao-iu fiaprvpel, irapaivav tois irXova-lois /J-rj 

T/Acts S' 'qav-)(acravTe<s ivl (])pe<rl Kaprepov ^Top, 
ot TToWwp ayaOwv es Kopov ddcraTe, 

iv p.e.TpioL(Ti T[joe<^e(r^]e jjueyav voov' ovre yap rjfJLel? 
7r€i(r6p,e6 , ov6 vfjuv apria Ta[XX'] ecrerai. 
KOL oXms alel ttjv alriav ttjs aTaaeoos dvairTei tois 
TrXov(TLOis' Slo Koi eV d.p-)(f} Trjs iXeyeias SeSoiKevai 
<l>r}a\ TTjv re (f)[LXapyvp]iav Trjv Te vireprjijiavlav, as 
Sia TUvTa Trjs e\6pas eVeo-raj[o-]?7y. 

6. Y%.vpLOS 8e yevo/xeuos tS>v 7rpayix[aT]cov ^oXcov 
Tov re Srjfiov rjXevdepaxre kol ii/ tS irapovTL kcCl els 
TO fjLeXXov, KcoXvcras 8[av€L]^eiv eVt toIs a-copiacnv, 
Kcu v6p.ovs edr]K€ kol ^eav a[7ro]K07ras' i7r[o]i7](re /cat 
Tmv ISlcov kol Tav SrjfioaLcou, as a-eia-a^deiav KaXov- 
(TLV, d>s aTroc^Kra/JLevot to fiapos' iv ols TreiprnvTai ti 

6. as (Tfi(rdx6fiav Ka\ov(nv : MS. crei(raf(6ia ; and the 9 of as has been 
inserted above the line. Aristotle does not say much about this 
measure, which was not constitutional but economical in its character. 
If, however, any doubt remained as to whether it amounted to a clean 
sweep of all debts, Aristotle's express definition of it as xP^'^" anoKOTral 
should remove it. It would even appear that it extended beyond 
debts secured on the land, since no limitation is expressed and public 
debts as well as private were included. It is hardly likely that debts 
to the state were secured by mortgage, since payment of such liabilities 
can seldom be deferred or allowed to fall into arrears. Probably, in 
dealing with the large number of obligations secured on the person or 
land of the debtor, Solon found it impossible to avoid touching the 
remaining class of debts, and was unable to annul the one without also 
annulling the other. As the usual security was evidently real property, 
it is probable that the amount of debts otherwise secured was com- 
paratively small, so that the extension of the xpeav diroKOTrr} to all debts 
alike effected a great simplification of the measure without any con- 
siderable increase of hardship. In short, Solon's economical reform 
was a complete measure of novae tabulae, 

dnoiTficrdfievoi : MS. airoaia-aiievoi. 


[/cat] Sia^dXXeip avTov. (rvuefirj yap r^ SoAooi/t /xeX- 
XovTi iroielv ttjv cr€i(ra^[d]etav Trpoenreiu Tiart tS>v 
\yvoii]piiuo\y\, eireiff , toy jxev ol Stj/xotikoI Xeyovai, 
TrapaaTpaTrjyrjdrjuai Sia rav (f)LXcov, as 8' ol [/ce/CTT^j- 
pevoi, fiXacr(l)rjp,elv Koi avTou KOLVcovelv. 8aveiaap,euoL 
yap ovTOL (TVveirplavTO rroXXrjv ■)^copau, [jxera 5e] ov 
TToXi) Trjs T&v •)(p€S)V airoKOTrrjs yLvop^ivqs iirXovTOW 
odeu (pacri yevea-dat tovs vcrTepov 8o[Ko]vvTas eivat 
iraXaioirXovTovs . ov /xrjv aAAa 7n0[avco]T€pos [o] rmv 
8r]fioTiKm[v X]6yos' ov yap [el/coy e]v fieu toIs aXXois 
ovTco perpiov yevecrOai, /cat kolvov, \a.p,(i\ t i^ou 
avTc^ \t\ovs \y6p\ovs vTroTroirjcrafieuou Tvpavuelu rrjs 
TToAecoy dfjiCJiOTepoLS dire^dv\€aQai koX irepX irXeiovos 
\Troi\r]aaa6aL t\o ko^Xov kolI ttjv ttjs iroXews (rooTrj- 
piav 7] TTfv avTOv irXeove^iav, iv [ovt\co 8e piKpols [/cat] 
ai'[a^to]ty /cara/)/)U7raii'[e]ti' iavTov. otl 8e ravTTjv 
icr^e TTjv i^ovcrtav rd re irpdyp-ara voaovvra pere- 
Kpovcraro, /cat ip rols TroLrjpMcriu avros iroXXa^ov 
pepvrjKe koX ol aXXoi (rvuopoXoyovcri 7raj'['rey]. rav- 
TTjv pev odv XPV vopl^eLV ^ev8y] ttjv alriav elval. 

7. IIoAtrftai' 8e KareaT-qcre kou vopovs cdrjKev 
aXXov9, TOLS 8e ApaKovTOS deapols iirava-avTO xpco- 

(Tvvi^rf yap k.t.X. : this story of the profit made by the friends of 
Solon out of the a-eia-dxdna is also given by Plutarch, c. 15. Aristotle 
does not mention the circumstance which Plutarch adduces as having 
proved Solon's innocence of complicity in the transaction, viz. that he 
vi^as himself a creditor to the extent of five talents, which he lost by his 
own measure. He rests his justification of Solon on his general 
character as proved by his whole career, especially his consistent 
refusal of the chance of making himself tyrant ; this is a fact beyond 
question, while the story of the five talents may be apocryphal. 

baveurafievoi : MS. Savtcraiievoi. 

liiTCKpoxKTUTo x n Very doubtful reading. 


lievoi ttXtju twv (ftoviKcou. avaypa^avres 5e tovs 
vofiovf ety tovs Kvp^eis icrTrjaav 4u rrj (rrod rrj 
fiaa-iXela /cat mfioaau ^ xprjcrecrOaL iravres' ol 8' 
ivuea ap^ovres ofivvvrey irpof tS XiOcp KareipaTi^ou 
avadrja-eiv avSpiavra •)(jpv(rovv idu riua irapafiaxri tcov 
vofiav o0ev en Koi vvv ovtcos 6p.vvovai. KareKvpaxre 
8e TOVS vojxovs ds Ikoltov [e]r77 kcu SieTU^e ttjv ttoXl- 
reiav TovSe Tpoirov. TifiT^fj.a[Ta SiJctAev els TeTTupa 

7. avaypdyffavTfs fie . . . rrj /3n(riXfim : this is the first passage (out 
of very many) which directly proves the present treatise to be Aristotle's 
'Afliji/atmj/ IIoXiTfia, these words being given by Harpocration (s. v. 
KiipSfts) as a quotation from that work. Plutarch also (Sol. 25) and 
the scholiast on Aristophanes' Birds 1354 refer to Aristotle for the 
word KvpBns {cf. Rose, Frag. 352). 

opvivm K.rX. : Plutarch (/. c.) paraphrases this passage, a/iwcv . . . 
eKatTTOS Tav Bea-fioBerSiV iv dyopa irpos ra \l6(0, KaTa<jiaTi^aVj ft tl Trapa^airj 
tS)V BeapSiv, dvSpidvra ;^puo'oS» l(TopeTpT]Tov dvadrjaeiv iv AfXtpois. 

Tip-ripara it.T.X. : the question raised by the present passage is a 
diflficult one. Hitherto there has been no manner of doubt that the 
well-known property qualification described in it was established by 
Solon. Harpocration {s. v. hrnds) quotes the present work thus, 
'ApioToreXijs 8' iv 'Adrjvaliav woKireia (priaiv on SoXav fls Terrapa Sicike 
reXrj to Trav irXrjdos AOrjualaVj irfvraKoa'top.ehi.pvovs kol iirireas Kai ^evyiras 
Koi 6^Tas, and again (j. v. TrevTaKoaiop,ihipvov), on 8 Te'X); fVoiijcrej' 'A6rj- 
vaiwv andvTCDV ^6\av . , , deSr/XuKev 'ApioTOTfkrjs iv 'Adrjvaiav TroXtrcta 
(Rose, Frag. 350). Plutarch {Sol. 18) ascribes the system expressly to 
Solon. In the second book of the Politics [c. 12) Solon is mentioned 
in connection with the four property classes, but it is not definitely 
asserted that he was the originator of them. If the present passage 
stood alone, one would be strongly inclined to suppose the words 
KaBdirep SiypjjTo Kai nparf pov to be an interpolation ; but it is supported 
by the statement above (ch. 4) that the members of the first three 
classes incurred certain fines for non-attendance to political duties 
under the Draconian constitution, and that passage it seems impossible 
to explain except on the supposition of the existence of these classes 
before the time of Solon. The statements of Aristotle here can only 
be reconciled with the general ascription of the classes in question to 
Solon, by supposing that the latter brought them into a relation with 
the political constitution which they had never held before. In the 
first place it may be noticed that Solon began his reforms by repealing 
all of Draco's laws except those relating to murder. This includes the 



TiXrf, Kadam-ep Si'^prjTO Koi irporepov, els TrevTUKoaio- 
p[e8ijj]v[ov Koi iTrTrea] /cat ^€vyiTr]u /cat dijTa. ras 

laws settling the political constitution, and as no written laws existed 
previous to those of Draco, it means that Solon made a clean sweep of 
all the laws relating to the constitution, so as to have a free hand in 
re-constructing it according to his own ideas. He then re-introduced 
the property classes, as well as the Council of Four Hundred and the 
Areopagus ; and thus the earliest laws which were known in later 
times in Athens establishing these parts of the constitution were those of 
Solon. The period between Solon and Draco was short, and it is not 
surprising that all memory of the pre-existence of the two first-named 
items should have been lost, in face of the fact that the existing laws on 
which they rested were laws of Solon. The Areopagus dated too far 
back and had held too large a place in the early history of Athens to 
share the same fate entirely ; yet even in its case an error of the same 
kind was propagated, and in the time of Plutarch it was the belief of 
the majority that it too had been created by Solon, a belief which 
he refutes on sufficient evidence (Sol. 19) and which was certainly 
erroneous. In addition to this, Solon made the property qualification 
more directly a part of the constitution than it was before ; for whereas 
under Draco's laws the definition of a person having a right to some 
share in the franchise was that he was tS>v onXa Trapcp^o/ieWi', in the 
Solonian constitution it was that he was a member of one or other 
of the four classes. There is nothing to show that the division into 
property classes had any connection with the political franchise or 
eligibility to office before the time of Solon. The mention of it above 
in the constitution of Draco speaks of it as used for differentiating the 
amounts of the fines due for neglect of public duties, and it may 
jeasonablybe supposed to have been employed for purposes of taxation 
as well ; but Solon was probably the first to employ this classification 
as a basis for the political organisation of the state. Before his time 
none but the members of the old Eupatrid aristocracy had any 
important share in the government ; and hence Solon was rightly 
regarded in after times as the reformer who substituted the qualification 
of property for the qualification of birth, while the fact that the property 
classification had existed previously for other purposes was forgotten. 
The only real difficulty arises from the direct citation of Aristotle by 
Harpocration, and this may be due either to careless quotation or to a 
disbelief of Aristotle's authority with reference to the pre-existence of 
these classes. It is also possible that the words Kaddnep 8t.7pi?ro koI 
TrpoTcpov may be an interpolation due to some one who noticed the 
mention of the property classes in the description of the Draconian 
constitution, so that while the fact of the pre-existence remains the 
same, the mention of it in this particular sentence would disappear. 


ti[€u ov]v ap^as OLTreveifiev apx^iv e/c irevTaKoa-LO/xe- [Col. 3.J 
oifivcov /cat iTrrrecov kcu ^evyirmu, tovs evvia apyov- 
Tas Koi Toiis rafilas /cat tovs TrcoXrjlTas] kcu tovs 
evSe/ca kcu tovs KcoXaKperas, Ikolcttols avdXoyov rm 
peyedei tov Tip[r]]p.[aTo]s uTroSiSovs T[riv dp]xriv. 
Tols 8e TO OrjTiKov TekovcTLv eKKXyjo-ias /cat Slkuct- 
T-qpuov ficTcScoKe povov. eSei 8e TeXeiv TrevTaKoa-iope- 
8ip,vov peu OS av e/c ttjs oiKeias Troifj TrevTaKocna 
p€Tpa Ta (rvvdp(f)co ^Tqpd kol vypd, hrirdba be tovs 
TpiaKoaia iroLovvTas, toy 5' eVtoi ^aau tovs ittttot/Oo- 
^€iv Svvapevovs. crrjpelop de (f)epovcrL to re ouopa 
To[v\ TeXovs, ms av diro tov irpdy\}Ji\aTos Kcipevou, 

This would relieve Harpocration from the charge of inaccurate or 
garbled quotation ; but in view of the fact that the MS. is certainly 
much earlier than the date of Harpocration this does not seem to 
be a very safe explanation. 

aniviifiev apx^iv : the latter part of this sentence explains the first. 
It does not mean that members of the first three classes were eligible 
to all the offices named, as is clear from the statement a little lower 
down that the raniai were elected from the first class alone, which it is 
practically certain was also the case with the archons (c/- Plutarch, 
Arist. i). The offices mentioned were filled from the first three classes, 
but some of them were filled from one class and others from another, 
cKaoTois dvaKoyov tw fieyeOei tov TifirifjiaTos diroSiBovs Tr]v dp^rjv. The 
highest offices were open to the first class alone, the lower to the others 
as well. 

Tols 8e TO driTiKov TeXovtriv cKK\t]<Tias Koi biKaaTrjpLtov fieTtSaiKe jnovov : this 
corresponds with the dvayKaioraTr) hivafus which Solon is said in Pol. 
II. 12 to have given to the lowest class, to tols dpxas alpelaBai koi 
tidvveii'. This was the most distinctively democratic innovation 
introduced by Solon, and in virtue of it he was rightly regarded in 
subsequent times as the founder of the democracy of Athens. He was 
not the first to shake the ascendancy of the Eupatrid oligarchy. That 
was the work of Draco ; but Solon was the first to remove aU con- 
siderations of birth from the political constitution, and to give the 
labouring classes a share in political power. 

as 8' enoi (jiain, ; no doubt the two standards are really the same. 
An income of 300 medimni was fixed as representing that on which a 
man could equip and maintain a mounted soldier. 

C a 

20 API2T0TEA0T2 

Kol TO, avaOrjjxaTa twv ap^alxov avaKeirai yap eV 
aKpoiroXei eiKav Ai(j)iXov e[0' y eVJtyeV/aaTrrat raSe' 

Aii^iXov 'AvOep-tcov TtjvS' avedrjKe deoi^, 
Otjtlkov olvtI tcXous iiTTraS' dfieLypdfievo'S. 
KOL Trapea-TTjKeu lttttos iKfiaprvpav *a»y ttjv hriraSa 
TOVTO (rr)fia[[jvov(r[a\p.* ov firjp dXX' evXoycorepov 
TOis jxirpoLS dirjprj(r0ai KaOairep tovs TrevTaKocriofie- 
Bifivovs. ^evyia-iov 8e reXelv tow SiuKocria ra 
(rvvaiJL(j)co iroiovvTas' tovs d' aXXovs OrjTLKOv, ovSe- 
fiids fieTe^ovTas dp^rjs. Sio kou vvv eTretSav eprjTUi 

elxcDv Ai(jit\ov : this statue is also referred to, and the inscription 
upon it quoted, by Pollux (VIII. 131). The MSS. of the latter give 
the first line as Ai(j>l\ov 'hvOijiiav mirov t6v8' aveBrjKs ffenls, excepting one 
which agrees with the present text with merely the substitution of rdvS' 
for rrjvS'. The editors and commentators have either taken the name 
Ai<f)i\ov out of the line, attaching it to the word imypafifm which 
precedes it, or else have emended it into a hexameter, At(j}i\ov 
'AiiBeiilav tokS' mirov Oeols avc6r]Ke. The present text probably gives the 
real reading of the inscription, as two pentameters, the corruption of 
most of the MSS. of Pollux being explained by the intrusion into the 
line of the gloss mnov. 

mr TTjv imraba k.tX. : there seems to be some corruption in the text. 
The sense is clear, and perhaps we should read as Tfjv iTnraSa toCto 

jiirpois ; MS. /leTpiois, 

SioKoa-ia : this confirms the usual statement as to the property 
qualification of the Zevylrai., as against Boeckh (P. E. IV. 5), who 
holds it to have been 150 medimni, on the strength of a law quoted by 
Demosthenes {Contr. Macart. pp. 1067, 1068), in which the dowry 
which a man of one of the three upper classes was bound to give to a 
relative in the lowest who was heiress to her deceased father (cVt'isXT/poy) 
was fixed, if he was a pentacosiomedimnus at 500 drachmas, if he was 
a knight at 300 drachmas (in each case the equivalent of a minimum 
year's income for the class), and if he was a zeugites at 150 drachmas, 
which Boeckh argues must equally represent the minimum income (a 
medimnus being valued at a drachma in Solon's system) of the third 
class. But this is too slight a basis on which to construct a refutation 
of all the ancient writers who mention the subject, to whom is now 
added the great authority of Aristotle. 

Sii Kut vvv K.T.X, : this is interesting, as showing that the property 


Tov fieXXovTa KXrjpovcrdai tiv oip-^rjv irolov reXos 
TcXel, ovS* av eiy ehrot drjTiKov. 

8. Tay 8' ap^as eiroiiqae KXrjpcoras ck TrpoKpircov, 
[ojus [^eKaa-^Trj irpoKpivei tS>v (f)vXaw. irpovKpivev 

qualification can never have been entirely abolished by law. The date 
of the final extension of eligibility to the archonship belongs to the 
period between the Persian and Peloponnesian wars, the Zevyirai being 
made eligible in 457 B.C. (see ch. 26 and note there). Whether 
there was any partial extension previously to this there is no evidence 
to show; but the final extension can only have taken the form of 
throwing open the office to all possessed of the lowest qualification, 
that of a Zevyirqi, while by a legal fiction even a person who did not 
come up to that standard was allowed to represent himself as possess- 
ing the required qualification. A partial parallel may be found in the 
notorious invasion of the law of property qualification for a member of 
the English parliament previous to 1858. 

8. Tar 8' apxis : MS. tijs S a^i^iys. 

KXripcoTCLs cK TTpoKp'iTwv i this passagc is at variance with the ordinary 
belief as to the manner of election to the archonship in the sixth 
century. It has been supposed, as common sense suggested in the 
absence of direct evidence, that until the lot was introduced about the 
time of the Persian wars the archons were directly elected, whether by 
the people or in whatever manner prevailed in earlier times. It is now 
certain (c/. infra) that in early times (presumably until the constitution 
of Draco, by whom the election was apparently given to the ecclesia) 
the archons were directly elected to their offices by the Areopagus ; 
but that when Solon introduced the people to political power a com- 
bined process of selection and sortition was devised. The four tribes 
elected ten candidates each, and from the forty persons thus designated 
the nine required officers were chosen by lot. With this passage may 
be compared the statement of Demosthenes (Contr. Neaer. p. 1370J, 
TOV ficv ^aaiKia ... 6 8^/ios ^peiro ck npoKpiToiv Kar' avdpayadiav )(ei,poTov5iv. 
Demosthenes refers this system to the time of Theseus, which is plainly 
impossible ; but it may be a recollection of the state of things under 
the Solonian constitution. The only discrepancy with the passage of 
Aristotle lies in the word x«P<""o''Si' : for whereas Aristotle represents 
the second stage of the election as conducted by the lot, Demosthenes 
regards both processes as selective. On a priori grounds the version 
of Demosthenes would be preferable, and it accords with the general 
view that the lot was not introduced for any purpose before the time 
of Cleisthenes at the earliest. On the other hand the orators, who 
are notoriously inaccurate in their history, are not to be compared 
with Aristotle as an authority, especially as the latter quotes a proof 

%% AP1ST0TEA0T2 

5' ety Tovs kvvia apypvras eKoia-Tr] SeKa, kcu tov\tovs 
eK\rf\povv' o9ev ere Siafieuec rais ^vXals to Se/ca 
KXrjpovv eKaarTTju, eir' eK tovtcov Kvafi€ve\^iv^ . o"r]fieiov 
S" OTL KXrjpcoras iiroirjaav e'/c twv TLfirjp.aT(ov 6 irepl rav 
rafiimv vopos a> ■^(pcop.evoi [SiareAojOcrif ert koL vvv 
KeXevei yap KXrjpovu tow Tajxlas e/c 7revTaKO<nop.€- 
8Lp.v(o[v. ^6X\cov p.ev odv o^tcos ivop-oOeTrjaev Trepl tcou 
evvia ap^ovrwv. to yap dp^alou rj iv 'Ap[eup irayto 

of his statement from the practice of his own day. Isocrates has a 
passage on the subject (Areop. c. 24, Bekk. p. 144), ovk e| ImavTaiv tols 
ap^as KXrjpovPTes, dWa tovs ^eKTifTTovs Koi tovs iKavoyrdTovs e<l> eKatrrov 
tS)v epyav wpoKpivovres, but he makes no clear distinction between the 
constitutions of Solon and of Cleisthenes, and is too vague to be of 
much use in an argument. In any case the Solonian system was not 
of long duration ; for even in the years which intervened between its 
establishment and its abrogation by the tyranny of Pisistratus we find 
that there were several disturbances to the normal process of election. 
On the changes subsequently introduced, see below, ch. 22, and note. 

It must be observed that the present passage, in ascribing this 
system of election to Solon, is not consistent with the statement in the 
Politics (II. 12) that Solon made no change in the election of magis- 
trates. This however is not the first contradiction that we have found 
between that chapter and this treatise, and it has already been noticed 
that the chapter in the Politics is of doubtful authenticity {cf. note on 
ch. 4, aniiihoTo (c.t.\.). 

KKrjpovv . . . Kvafiiveiv : there is no difference in meaning between 
these words, both being regularly used of election by lot, as opposed 
to x"po'''"'f '" or alpkiadai. The difference between the earlier and the 
later practice was that at first the tribes elected their ten candidates 
apiece by deliberate choice, and the lot was only put into operation 
between the forty individuals thus nominated ; whereas afterwards 
the lot was employed in both stages of the election. 

i] fV 'Apeia Trdya ^ovXr) : cf. note on ch. 3, ad fin. This direct state- 
ment by Aristotle is of great value, as confirming what might have been 
independently conjectured from the preceding account of the early 
importance of the Areopagus, though historians have hitherto been 
shy of making any definite assertion as to the election of magistrates 
in the times preceding Solon. At first sight it appears to contradict 
the statement in ch. 4, that oi oTrXa iTapexdp.fvoi {i. e. the ecclesia) elected 
the archons and other magistrates under the constitution of Draco. 
Aristotle's phrase to apxalon, however, does not necessarily imply that 


fiovX]ri dvaKaXearafieuT] Koi Kpiuaaa Kaff avTrjv tov 
eTTiTTjSeiou €0' eKaarrj t5>v ap^wv [eV eviavrov 8i.a- 
Ta^ajaa aTrda-TeXXeu. ^vXal S" rjcrav 8 KaOairep 
TrpoTepov Koi 0uAo/8ao-tAeiy reacrapef. €K 8e [ttJs 
(f)vXrjs iK]d(rT7jS' rjuav v€V€ixT]p.evai rpiTTves p-eu rpeis, 
uavKpapiai Se 8a)8eKa Kad* eKacTTrju. [^u 8e Tav] 
vavKpapiaiv dp^-q KadecTTTjKvia vavKpapoi, rerayp-evT] 

the election of officers by the Areopagus lasted up to the time of Solon. 
It probably occurred to him that he had not mentioned the primitive 
method of election in the previous part of his work, and he therefore 
inserted it here. Draco's reforms took the election from the Areopagus 
and gave it to the persons qualified to sit in his ecclesia. Solon threw 
open the ecclesia to a much wider circle, and thereupon introduced the 
double process of election by vote and lot described in this chapter. 

eV eviavTov 8iaTa|atra: the writing of the MS. is almost entirely ob- 
literated, but the remains which are visible are in accordance with the 
reading here proposed. 

0uXai 8' rja-av . , . Kaff inaa-Tr^v : quoted by Photius, j. v. vavKpapia, 
who prefaces his quotation with the words, ix rijs 'Apio-ToreXous noXiTelas, 
ov rponov Siera^e Trjv woKiv 6 SdAmi' (Rose, Frag. 349). 

vavKpaplai : MS. vavKpaipai, 

Kaff iKCUTTTjV '. SC. <^v\ijV. 

vavKpapoi : MS. vavKpaipot. This passage does not do much to 
clear up the obscurity which surrounds the question of the vavKpapoi. 
Photius (/. c.) ascribes the invention of the name to Solon (SdXwj/os ovtius 
ovopatravTos , i>s Kai 'ApioroTeXi/r (jir/irlv), but the reference to Aristotle, 
if correct, must be to some other passage than the present. Probably, 
however, he does refer to this passage, assuming from the mention 
of the Naucraries here that Aristotle intended to ascribe their origin, 
and therefore their name, to Solon. It is not clear that this was 
Aristotle's intention. It appears rather that he expressly avoids doing 
so ; for having stated that the four tribes existed previously, he pro- 
ceeds to say that those tribes were subdivided into Trittyes and 
Naucraries, whereas in speaking elsewhere of the institutions of Solon he 
always attributes them to him directly (ray dpxas cn-oii^o-e KKriptoTas . . . 
ovTtos ivoiioBcTtia-ev . . . 0ov\rjv 8' inoirfiTe). It is moreover certain from 
Herodotus (V. 71) that these subdivisions of the tribes existed from 
much earlier days. The Naucraries were evidently the units of local 
administration, as the demes became subsequently; and we learn 
from the present passage that their principal duty was financial. Thus 
Hesychius describes them {s. v. vavKKapoi) as oLnves a<j)' sKda-rris x<»pos 
Tas €la-(j>opas tiaikeyov, and Pollux (VIII. I08), ras 8' eiVi^opns to 9 Kara. 


TTpos re TOLS €\la\<^opas kcu ras 8aiT\avas\ ras yivo- 
fjLeuas' 8io Koi iv tols vofxoLs Tol\s 2]oAcoi/oy oly ovkcti 
^prnvrai {oiov \^Ikos) ye^ypairraL tovs vavKpapovs 
elcnrpaTTeiv kol avaXiaKeiv e'/c tov vavKpapiKOv apyv- 
p[iov. fiov}C\r]v 5' iiroirjae T€TpaKoaio\ys\, eKarov i^ 
eKciaTrjs 0yA^y, Tr)v Se tcov ' ApeoTrayeirmv era^ev 
e[7-t] vop.o(l>v\aK€iv, axrirep virrip-)(€v kol irporepov 
iTTia-KOTTOs o[S](ra rrjs TroXire/ay ey ra re aXXa, kol 
TO, TrXelara Koi ra fieyiara rmv ttoXitcov Sierrjpei kol 
Toiis ap,apT0LV0VTas ijvdvvev Kvpi[a] odlara tov C'?]/^'" 
[ovv] Koi KoXd^eiv, koL ray eKTiaeLS du€<j)€peu ely 

8rjiJ,ovs Sif xftporovovu oStoi koi to i^ avrav avaKa/iaTa, adding also vavxpapia 
S' eKd<TTri Svo lirrr(as ivapeix^ kcu vavv piav, d<f>' rjs laas a>v6iuuTT0 (Rose, 
Frag. 349). The quotation which Aristotle proceeds to make from 
the law of Solon shows that the vavKpapot, who were the governors 
of each division, had the duty of collecting and administering certain 
funds within their own districts. Aristotle does not mention the 
npvrdveis tS>v vavxpapav whom Herodotus (/. c.) states to have been the 
magistrates at the head of affairs in Athens at the time of the con- 
spiracy of Cylon ; but it is probable that they were a central committee, 
whose number we do not know, on which the forty-eight vavKpapoi served 
in turn, and who had the general administration of the finances, 
subject no doubt to the supervision of the Areopagus. As to the 
statement that they at any time managed affairs in Athens, it is clear 
that (in the absence of the first part of the present treatise, which 
might have thrown some light upon the subject) the counter-statement 
of Thucydides (I. 126), who must be deliberately correcting his 
predecessor, deserves greater credence ; and the way in which the 
office is here spoken of seems to imply that Aristotle has not mentioned 
it already in the now missing part of his work. 

^ovXrjv : this is the same assembly as that established by Draco, 
with the exception that the one additional member is omitted (c/. 
note on ch. 4). Its origin has hitherto been universally ascribed 
to Solon, by Plutarch among others {c. 19, Sfvrepav irpoo-KaTc'i'ci/ic fiovKfiv) ; 
but c/. note on ch. 7, Tip-rnmra k.t.X. 

e's TO. , . . n-XeicTTa : the writing of the MS. is very faint, and the 
readings consequently doubtful. Cf. ch. 3, di^Kci fi« to irXeitrTo icai tu 
p-tyiara rav iv rg TrdXfi, Kal KoXa^ovo'a Koi ^ij/uiofa'a itdvras tovs aitoa- 
fioivras Kvplas, 


ttoXlv ovk iwiypacpovcra ttjv 7rp6(j)a(n[i> tov koXo,^- 
eaOaL, kcu tovs eVt KaraXva-ei tov 8-^fxov avv[i]crTa- 
lx€vovs €Kpivev, ^oXcovos 0ev[TOs], 6 fi€v [oSv ravT 
era^e] Trepl avrmv. bpmv 8e ttjv fiev ttoXlv ttoXXolkls 
aracTLaQova-av, rmv 8e ttoXitojv iviovs 5[ta] ttjv 
padvi^ioi^v [aTrofrraji'T-ay to avTofiaTov v6p.ov edrjKC 
TTpos avTOvs "lBlov, OS OLV aTaa-La^ova-qs Trjs TroX^eoo^s 
fx^T) alp^TjTai TO. OTrXa fijjSe fied' iTepmv, arip-ov elvai 
Kol Tjjs TToXeas p.r) fMere^etv. 

9. Ta p.ev odv [irepl to^s ap^as t\ovt^ov [eix]^ "^ov 
TpoTTOu. doK€L 8e ttJs ^oXcovos TToXiTeias Tpia TaVT 
eivat Ta SyjfiOTiKcoTaTa, Trpwrov fiev /cat fieyicTTOv to 

noWaKis : MS. noWaKi. It is not likely that a poetical form was 
used by Aristotle, and the omission of the s is easily explained by the 
next word beginning with the same letter. 

voiiov fOrjKe : this passage is quoted and amplified by Aulus Gellius 
(II. 12) : ' In legibus Solonis . . . legem esse Aristoteles refert scriptam 
ad hanc sententiam, "si ob discordiam dissensionemque seditio atque 
discessio populi in duas partes fiet et ob earn causam irritatis animis 
utrimque arma capientur pugnabiturque, turn qui in eo tempore in eoque 
casu civilis discordiae non alterutra parte sese adiunxerit, sed solitarius 
separatusque a communi malo civitatis secesserit, is domo patria 
fortunisque omnibus careto, exul extorrisque esto.'" This laborious 
amplification, which adds nothing to the direct simplicity of Solon's 
original law, must be the work of a scientific jurist of a late period, 
perhaps GeUius himself. Plutarch also [c. 20) refers to this law, which 
he calls Ibios fioKicrTa Kai irapabo^os. Cf. Rose, Frag. 353. 

9. rpla Ta SrnionKaTara : in Poi. II. 12 the summary of the Solonian 
constitution is that it gave to the lower classes the necessary minimum 
of political power, viz. the election of magistrates and the power of 
calling them to account. In the present passage the first of these 
points (which was not due primarily to Solon, as appears from. ch. 4) 
is passed over, but much stress is laid upon the other, which was 
in fact the hinge of the Athenian constitution. The constitutions of 
different countries have each had their one decisive fact, which may 
not have been the one possessing most legal prominence, but which 
nevertheless has guided the course of the political development of the 
country. In England this decisive fact has been the control of the 
Commons over financial supplies, which has always been the lever 


/Lij) 8av€L^eLV eVi Tois (rmfiacnv, ejreira to i^elvai 
Tw ^ovXofJLeua [SiKa^ec^at] inrep rau d8iKOVfievcov, 
rpiTOV 8e ((17) fiaXLCTTa (pacriv la^vKevai to ttXtjOos) 
rj els TO 8iK\a(rT-^piovj e0[ecrt]y Kvpios yap wv 6 Srjpos 
TT]9 "^rjcpov KvpLos yiv€Tai, TTjs TToXtTeias, €TL 8e KcCi 5ia 
TO prj yeyp\a\(l)6\aL Toji/s vopovs airXm fJLr]8e (ra(l)a)S, 
dXX' mcnrep 6 irepl Ta>v KXrjpcov kou eTriKXrjpmu, 
dv^ay^K^T] 171'] ray dp(j)i(rfiT]Trj(rets yivecrdai kol iravTa 
^pafieveiv kol to, koivo, kou to. tSia to, 5t/ca[o"r]^/)[ia]. 
otovTai peu odv Tives i7riTT]8e9 daa^eis clvtov TroLrjaai 

by which the popular House has at first checked and finally brought 
into subordination the power of the Crown. In Rome it was the 
initiative of the magistrate, which in earlier days threw all the power 
into the hands of the body from which the chief magistrates came and 
to which they returned, while from the time of the Gracchi onward 
it was the weapon with which the democratic magistrates attacked and 
overthrew the government of the aristocracy. In Athens it was the 
immediate control which the people exercised over the magistrates, 
summarily directing their proceedings in office by means of the ecclesia, 
and sharply punishing any neglect of its wishes by means of the courts 
of law. Solon deserved the reputation which he won as the founder 
of the Athenian constitution by being the first to introduce into it this 
special feature. The reforms of Cleisthenes, Ephialtes, Pericles, and 
others only developed the constitution on the lines which Solon had 
laid down ; and though these modifications were doubtless far enough 
from his original intention, they yet followed naturally firom the growing 
strength of the lower classes whom he had introduced into public life. 

e(f>e<ns : Plutarch (c. 18) notices the importance of this right of 
appeal, as throwing the ultimate authority into the hands of the law- 
courts ; Kal yap oaa rais ap\als era^e Kpivfiv, 6fioia>s Ka\ Trepi fKelvcov els to 
SiKaiTTrjpiov e(p4<Teis eSaK€ toIs ffov\oixevois. The construction of 17 . . 
c0c(r(s is somewhat irregular, and the whole sentence appears to have 
suffered some corruption in the MS., apart from the difficulties of 
decipHerment in the case of certain letters ; but the sense is quite 

6 TTfpi tS>p KKrjpmv Ka\ imKKr)pav ; cf. Plutarch, c. 20. 

oXovTai fiev olv k.t.X. : Plutarch mentions the same story {c. 18). In 
itself it is of course absurd, but it is useful as showing that Aristotle 
placed the origin of the fijKaorijpta at least as early as the time of Solon, 
which Grote doubts. In some form they must have existed for the 


Tovs vofiovs OTTtoy Ti TTJs Kpla-ea>s[e]xV [^ SvH'O^ K\vpio9. 
ov fiiju CLKos, aXXa 8ia to [it] Bvvaa-Oai KadoXov 
TrepiXafieLU to ^eXTia-Tov ov yap [5]t/c[aioj/] 6/c Tav 
vvv yivop.€vcov uXX' e/c ttjs aXXrjs TToXiTelas Oewpeiv 
TTjv eKeivov ^ovXrjaiv. 

10. El/ [/xev o^v rjotf v6p,0LS tuvtu 8ok€i delvat 
8r]fi0TiKa, irpo 5e Trjs vofiodeaias iroirja-a^crOai ttjv 
Xjo]e<S[j' aTToJ/coTrryi', /cat /xera TavTa Trjv re rai' /te- 
Tpcov Kai (rTa6p.a>v kou ttjv tov vop.Lcrp.aTos av^rjtnv. 
eTT €Keiuov yap iyeveTO /cat Ta peTpa p.e[^co rav 
^eiScoveicov, /cat ^ irpoTepov \p.ev e~)(o\vaa irapa- 
\TrXrjcr\i.ov e^Bop.rjKOVTa dpa^pas dveTrXrjpaiOrj tols 
eKaTOV. rjv8* bap-)((uosxapaKTr]p 8i8pa-)Qiov. eVotiyo-e [Col. 4] 
fie KOU (TTaOpov Trpos T^oj v6p.L(rp.a *r[/)]ety /cat* c^^- 

purpose of the eUBwa ; and it is not necessary to suppose, nor is it 
probable, that they had a much more extended existence at this time. 
Solon gave the lower classes a potential rather than an immediately 
actual share in the government, and the great development of the law- 
courts undoubtedly belongs to the fifth century, when pay was intro- 
duced for service in them. 

10. fierpav Kai araBiiSiv : this confirms Boeckh's opinion as against 
Grote's, that Solon introduced some reform into the system of weights 
and measures, but details are not given except as to the monetary 
standard. It seems clear, however, that the reform of the monetary 
standard had nothing to do with the afia-axSei-a. As all debts were 
abolished by the latter, there would be no call for an enactment that 
the new and smaller drachmas were to be taken as equivalent to the 
old drachmas for the purpose of discharging debts. The measure 
appears to have been purely commercial, with the view of developing 
the Athenian trade with the great commercial cities of Euboea, as well 
as with the Ionian cities in Asia Minor, which likewise used the Euboic 
standard of currency. 

riv 8' 6 apxaios xop'^i'Trip hlhpaxiiov : SO Pollux (IX. 60) says of the 
bibpaxp,ov, TO 8e iraKaiov toCto ^v 'Adijvaiois voiuap-a, Kai iKaKeiro ^ovc. 

Tpels Kai i^^Kovra /ivas to ToKavTov dyovaas : this appears to be the 
reading of the MS., though the letters of the first word are rather faint. 
The words Tpeis nal must, however, be corrupt. There is no indication 
that the number of minae in a talent was ever other than sixty. 


Kovra fxvas to raXavTOV ayovcras, kou i7n8Lev€fn]dr](rav 
[ai] fival TOO (TTaTrjpi kou toIs aXKois (TTaOjxols. 

1 1 . Aiara^ag 8e rrjv iroXLTeiav ovirep elprjTai 
rpoirov, eVetS^ TrpocnovTes TrdvTes Trepl tcov uo/juov 
evcoxXovv, TO. p-ev eTriTipMUTes ra 8e avaKpLvovres, 
fiovX6p.€vos p.y}T€ ravra Kivelv p-rjT aire^aveaQai 
wapoou aTro8r}p.Lav iXoyiaaro Kar ep-Tropi^avj d/xa kol 
Oecopiav els AHyvTTTOv \Trep\ KaJz/toTrou [TroAjei Se/ca 
irav ov yap oieadai Slkuiov eivai [rojuy v6p.ovs 
e^rjyeladai Trapcov aAA' eKaarov ra y€ypap.p,€va 
TTOirjaai. dp.a 8e koI avvi^aLv\ev\ avrS twv t€ 
yvcopipMV 8ia(f)6povs yeyevrjcrdaL ttoXXovs 5ta ras 
Tcou yjpemv mroKOTrd\s, k\cu ray a-racreis dp.(poT€pas 
p^eraOiadai 8ia to irapd 86^av avTols yevicrdai Trjv 
\ov\crav \KaTa\(TTa(TLV. 6 p.ev yap 8rjp,os w€to TrauT 
dvd8a(rTa TroLrjaeiv avTov, ol 8e yvapipLOi [TraJAti/ els 
TTjv avTTjv Ta^LV dTro8a)(reiV rjs [jJLevToi\ irapaX- 
Aa^fay So^rjs a\p(f>OTepois rjvavTLCoOr), KcCi i^ov avTm 
p-eff OTTOTepcov rjfiovXeTO (rv(rTd\vTij TVpavvelv etXeTO 
Tj-pos dp,(j)OTepovs dir€-)(6e(rdrivai crcoaas ttjv TraTplSa 
Ka\ TO. |Qe[Ar£](rra vop-odeTrjaas . 

12. TavTa S" OTL tovtov {tov") Tpoirov ea-\€U ot 
T dXXoL avp,(f)a)vov(rL iravT^s, kou avTos eV Trj Troirjaei 
p.e\^p.v\r}TaL Trepl avTcov iv TOiaSe' 

Ai7ju,&) jjikv yap eSw/ca Tocrov yipa<; ocrcrov dnapl^Ket], 

11. Kivfiv: MS. Keiwiv. 

KaTaa-Taatv : the word originally written was Ta^tv, but KardirTacnv 
has been written above it as a correction. 

12. A^/io) /lev yap K.T.X. : quoted in Plutarch (c. i8), Bergk, Frag: 4. 

£^/ia) : MS. Srifioi. 

yipas : the MSS. of Plutarch have Kparos. 

airapKei : the reading of the MSS. of Plutarch is iwapKei, but mrapKii 


TifiTJ'S ovT atjjeKoiv ovt enope^dfxevo'i. 

Kai Tois e^/Dacra/ATjv [jbrjSev a[ei]/ces ex^'^- 
carrjv o afi(j>L/3akQ}v Kparepov cra.KO<i afi.<^oT4poi(Ti 
T\i\Kav S' ovK elacr ovheripov; dSiKcos. 

TraXiv 8' a7ro(f)aiv6ix€POs irepl rod TrXrjOovs, ws "[wt]^ 
Set ■)(j)7J(rdar 

Arjfio's o &)§' av apurra cri/v rfyefiovecrcrLV erroiTO, 

p,y]Te XCav di'[e]^eis ju-^jre /3i,a[,6[ievo<s. 
TiKTei yap /copos v/Sptv, orav ttoXus o\/8os e7n^T[ai] 

avdpamoKTiv ocrois jit'^ voos apTio<; y. 

KOL iraXiv biayvcadi irov Xeyei TrepX tS)v SiaveifiaadaL 
TJ]v yrjv fiovXofiivcov 

Ot S' e^' apTrayalcriv ^\dov, e\7ri[S* eX]-)(ov d(j)veoiv, 

has been conjectured as being more suitable, and the present MS. of 
Aristotle confirms it. 

eirope^dfiefos : MS. aTTOpe^afievot. 

01 : MS. otrot. 

Arjfws S' 2)8' fii/ K.T.X. : the first two lines are quoted in Plutarch (Sol. 
et Popl. Comp. 2), Bergk, Frag. 5. The two remaining lines occur in 
Theognis, 153, 154 ; but the first is quoted as Solon's by Clement of 
Alexandria {Strom. VI. p. 740), and it is clear that Theognis borrowed 
a couplet which harmonised well with his own didactic verses. 

^ta^ofifvos : the MSS. of Plutarch have me^onevos, but the present 
reading appears preferable. 

TToXuj : the MSS. of Theognis have KaKa, but the quotation in 
Clement of Alexandria agrees with the text of Aristotle. 

avOpamoimv otrois : the MSS. of Theognis have avBpaira koI ora, but 
the present reading again appears preferable. 

o( 8' £0' apirayaldi.v ^\dov k.t.\. : this quotation is from a poem which, 
as Aristides (jrepi tov irapaKftdeyfiaros II. p. 536) informs us, was com- 
posed e^ejr/rijScy eZs avrbv Kai Trjv eavTov noKiTeiav. Lines four and five are 
quoted by Plutarch (c. 16), and part of lines six and seven by Aristides 
(/.£■.). The rest is new. The three other fragments in the same 
metre (Bergk, 30, 32, 34) are no doubt from the same poem, including 
the well-known lines on his refusal to set himself up as tyrant, ovk i'tjiv 
SoXa)i> fiadv(j)pav. Plutarch, in quoting one of these fragments, states 
that the poem from which it comes was addressed to Phocus. 


KoZoKovv eKacTTOs avTCJv oK^ov evpyjcreLV noXvv, 
Kai jx€ KoniWovTa \eia»s Tpa)(yv cKcfiaveLV voov. 
^aSi/a i^kv TOT i(f)pdaavTO, vvv hi jjlol -^oXovfJievot, 
\of[^ov 6]^^aX|ju.or]s opSicn Traj/re? wcTTe hrjioi. 
ov ■^(pemv' a fie.v yap eiTra crvv deolcriv 7]vv[cr(i], 
[aXXa S' a\v p^ajryjv £€p2{o]v, ovSe [lot, TvpavvCSo^ 
avBdvci fiia, tl [piQeiv, ovSe 7rte[i/)a]s xdovos 
TTttT/aiSos OaKOLcriv icrdXov? laopjOipiav e)(eLv. 
[7rdXiv\ 8e kcu Trepl Trjf a7ro[/0i]ay Trjg t5)v [Trei'^rjcov 
KoX tS>v SovXevovTcop fi€v TrpoTcpou iXevdepcodevTcov 
[5e 5ta] TT/v (ret(ra;(^ei[ai']. 

'Eyci) 8e Tcav p,kv ovveK d^ovqXaTov 
Brjfiov Tt TO'VT0)v irpXv tv)(S>v eiravcrdp,riv, 

Srjioil MS. Sijiov. 

a fih yap ewra : the MSS. of Aristides read dfia yap aeXnTO or & fih 
yap aeXffra. Gaisford conjectured A p-ev aekirra, and is followed by 
Bergk, and these words have hitherto been taken as the beginning of 
a line. 

aWa 8' : following Gaisford's emendation of apn 6', which is read by 
the MSS. of Aristides. 

dubavei. k.tX. : the readings in this line are rather doubtful, and the 
exact meaning of the final couplet is not clear. There is no reason 
why he should not hke honest men (cVfiXoi) to have an equal share in 
the enjoyment of the country, and it may be suggested that oKKa should 
be substituted for ovbe, as the latter may be simply a mistake due to 
the occurrence of the same word in the same place in the preceding 

hovKivovTav : this is the first word legible on the first of the two frag- 
ments of the IloXtTfia discovered by Blass in the Berlin Museum (cf. 
Hermes, XV. 366), and identified as Aristotle's by Bergk. The front 
side of the first fragment contains twenty-three fines, all imperfect, 
ending with a portion of the line ttoXXSc hv avhpav 178' fxiP">^1 foXiy. 

*Eym 8e tS>v pev k.t.X. : the first two lines are new ; the rest is the 
well-known fragment quoted by Aristides (i.e.), and partly also by 
Plutarch (c. 15). 

o^ovrfXaTov : the word is a strange one, but it does not seem possible 
to make anything else out of the MS. It is only known elsewhere in 
Aesch. Suppl. 181, where it is an epithet of a-vpiyyes, and is used in its 
simple sense of ' whirling on the axle.' Here it is metaphorical and 
indicates a torture such as that of Ixion. 


a-Vfifxaprvf^oi^q tcivt av iv SUr} )(p6vov 
it-rirrip [leyCa-Trj Sai/Jiova^v 'OXvjfnrLcov 
apicrra, Trj fj^iXaiva, tijs ey<u ttotc 
[o]pous avelXov noXXa^rj veTrrjyoTaljs], 
{Trpoa-d^ev he 8ovXevovcra, vvv iXevdipa. 
TToXXov's 8' 'A^Tjvas, irarpCS' eis ^eo/cTiT[oi'], 
[avqjyayov vpadevra';, aXXov e/cSi/cws, 
aWoi' oi/caiws, tov<s 8' dvayxaiTys viro 
Xpeiov<s (jivyovTa?, yXwcrcrav ovkct 'Attlk-tiv 
leWas, ft>5 av TToXXa)(rj TrXai{cop.ivov?^, 
Toil's S' ivdaS" avTov S[ovXC]7jv detfcea 
[e]-)(ovTa<s, rjdr) SecnroTav T/30/Aei'jU,eV[ous], 
[eX]eu^e/>ov9 edrjKa. Taura ju,ev Kparei 
vofjLov, jSiav re fcal BCktjv (rvvapfjioa-as, 
[epe^a], Koi SirjXdov ois VTrea~)(6fi'rjv. 
dea-p.ov's ff ofio LCD'S tS /ca/coJ re KayaOw, 
evdelav cis c/cacrTov apfiocra's Z'iKiqv, 
iypa^a. Kevrpov 8' dXXos ct»s eyai Xa^utv, 
\KaKp^paori<s re Kat <f)LXoKTy]fici}v avrqp, 
ovK av KareoT^e hrjfiov' ei ydp i7[^e]Xov 

xpovov : so too the MSS. of Aristides ; Bergk accepts the conjecture 
Kpovov, but the MS. reading appears to give a perfectly good sense. It 
is Solon's appeal to the judgment of Time. 

BeoKTiTov : MS. OfOKTUTTov, which is also thp reading of all the MSS. 
of Aristides except one. 

Xpeiovs <j>vy6pTas : this is certainly a better reading than the fantastic 
Xpr](rfi6v \eyovTas, which is given by the MSS. of Aristides, to the 
confusion of commentators. 

KpoTfi vofiov : MS. Kparefi. Kparei Sfiov is the reading of most of the 
MSS. of Aristides, and Plutarch also gives o/jlov : in accordance with 
which the editors read (tparij, which is found in one of the MSS. of 
Aristides. The present text seems preferable : ' by the strength of 
law I did it, fitting might and right together.' 

el yap ijBeKov k.tX. : the quotation in Aristides ends with the words 
OVK. hv KaTi<T\i Sjjpov, but Plutarch (c, 16) says kmtoi (l)ria\v as ei tjs aXXoj 
eir^f ffiv avTrjV hvvap.iv, ovk hv Kareaxf 8^pov .... yd\a {cf. tnfra). 
Consequently the latter line and a half have been joined on to the 
quotation of Aristides ; while the lines « yhp ^6(\ov , . . , inTpa^riv 


a Tots ivavTio[i(rL]v ■r]v8aveu Tore, 
aS^iS S' a Toiatv are/oois (f)pdcraL oi^a, 
TToXXcSv av dj/S/owv 17S' €)(y]pco6'r) 770X15. 
[wi'] ovveK oikKriv iroivTodev 7roLovfievo<i 
015 ev Kvcrii' TroXXato-it' i(TTpoi<fyr]v Xv/co5. 

/cai TTCtXti' oveLSi^div Trpos ray vaTepov avT\ov\ /xefi^i- 
lxoipia9 dfi(j)OTepcou' 

Atj/ao) jLtev ei ^/"^ Si,a(f)paBr)v oveuoCcraL, 
a vvv evovcTLi' ovttot 6(f)6a,\fiOLcrLV av 
€voovTe<; eioov 

oa-OL Se fi€i^ov<s Koi ^Cav dfieuvove? 
aivolev dv fie /cai (jaXov TTotoiaro. 

et yap ns- ccAAoy, ^?70-t, Tavrrjs rrjs riixrjs eTv^ev, 

ovK av Ko/ricrye 8rjfiov ovo hravcraTO, 
vplv av Tapd^a<; vvap e^[eX]eti' yd\a. 
[Col. 5.1 ^y<^ ^^ TouTft)j/ aa-irep iv p-eraiyjiiw 

6po<i KarecTTrjv. 
1 3 . T^J' pev odv diroh-qplav liron^a-aTO 8ia ravras 

'XvKor, which are separately quoted by Aristides, stand as an inde- 
pendent fragment (Bergk, 36). The present passage shows what must 
be taken as the true re-arrangement of the lines, from which it appears 
that Solon repeated the phrase ovk Si/ Karea-x^ Srniov more than once. 

d Tols : MS. avTois-. 

avdis S' K.T.X. : the MS. is quite corrupt, reading avBis Se avroicriv 
ovTipai (l>pacraLaTo, from which one may perhaps extract the reading 
(ppdaai in place of Spaa-ai, which is found in Aristides. 

Sm : the MSS. of Aristides have tS>v. 

dKKrjv : the MSS. of Aristides have apxriv, which Bergk emends 6pyi]v. 
The present reading seems preferable. 

trotoiiievos : the MSS. of Aristides have KVKeipevos, 

evSoires c'Sok : it is evident that the quotation was broken off here, 
in the middle of the description of the indebtedness of the lower orders 
to Solon, and it is resumed where he passes on to show what he had 
done for the upper classes. 

irvap : MSS. of Plutarch n'lap. The following line and a half were 
not hitherto known. 



Tag' aiTLas. ^oXcovos S" am-oBTjfirjcravTos, en r^y 
TToAeojy rerapayfiiviqs, iin fieu err] Terrapa Sirjyov [e]v 
ijcrv^La' rm Se Tre/iTrro) /jLera tt]v 1.6X(avos ocp^rjv ovk 
eirea-Trj&av ap^ovra dia rrjv a-T\aa\Lv, kol irdXiu 
€Tei Trep-TTTcp *t7]v avTrjv alrlav apxaMU* €Troir}a-av. 
fiera 8e ravra Slol rav avrav xpoucou A^ap^a^aias 

13. TM 8e wefiiTTia /icto t^k SoXovos apxqv : the legislation of Solonbeing 
in 594 B.C., the date here referred to will be 590 B.C., according to the 
usual Greek method of reckoning time. In the lists of archons the 
name of Simon is given for that year ; but Clinton shows some reason 
for believing that the Parian Chronicle is right in this case, instead of 
(as usual) giving the date a year too high, and he accordingly places 
Simon's archonship in 591 B.C., which leaves 590 B.C. clear for the year 
of anarchy described by Aristotle. 

ineiTTt]CTav : MS. apparently airecrTrja-av. 

iraKiv cr€( TrefOTTcf : Clinton, on the strength of the scholiasts on 
Pindar {Prolog. Py^/%.), places the archonship of Damasias in 586 B.C., 
but unless we are to suppose that there were two archons of the name 
within five years of one another there must be a mistake here. It is 
quite possible that this very passage of Aristotle was the authority of 
the scholiasts (or rather of the source from which both evidently 
drew) for the date of Damasias, and that the mistake arose through 
there being two periods of five years mentioned. The words which 
follow are doubtful. The MS. reading is corrupt, and the simplest 
and most probable correction seems to be to read 8ia ti)!/ amfiv ahlav 
ap^fjv OVK iiroirjirav. 

Aa/ioo-iar : until the discovery of the Berlin fragments of the HoXirda 
nothing was known of this person beyond his name, nor was there any 
sign of a constitutional crisis being associated with his rule. The 
reverse of the first Berlin fragment (Blass, Hermes, XV. 372 ; Diels, 
Berl. Acad. 1885) contains a portion of the present passage, beginning 
with the word ap^ovTa just above, but becoming intelligible first with the 
name Aafiaalas. It contains twenty-four lines (all imperfect, especially 
the last five), and ends with the words ™ xp^"- The present discovery 
of the complete passage at once overthrows a large number of con- 
jectures which were made as to the date and character of the events 
referred to in it. The date of the accession of Damasins to office is 
clearly 582 B.C., and he governed for that year and the year following. 
The Parian Chronicle for the year 581 B.C. has the words SpxovTos 
Aap,acriov tov Sevripov, and the last word has been supposed to be 
added to distinguish this Damasias from the archon in 639 B.C. In 
the light of the narrative of Aristotle it is probable that it means the 



alpejdeh apyav iT-q dvo Koi 8vo fiijuas "rtpq^v, ecos 
e^rjXacrOrf fiia ttjs a.p\ris. elr eSo^e^v] avTols ^la 
TO (TTacria^eLV ap-^ovras iXecrOat Seku, wevre p.ev 
evTrarpiSmv, rpeh Se d^yp'^oiKcov, Svo Se Srjp.Covpyau, 

second year of the rule of Damasias, though the compiler of the 
chronicle possibly did not so understand it himself, but copied it from 
a record in which the name of Damasias stood against both 582 and 
581 B.C. : in this case it is a confirmation of the date as deducible 
from Aristotle. As to the constitutional significance of the episode, it 
is evident that Damasias, having been duly elected archon eponymus 
(unless we are to suppose that he was elected sole archon, which is 
not probable, since Aristotle's comment below, wa-re SijXov k.t.\., 
indicates that though the archon's was the most important post it did 
not stand alone) in 582 B.C., illegally continued himself in office during 
the following year, and in fact endeavoured to establish a tyranny. 
Possibly he made some plausible excuse for securing a second year of 
office ; but when the third year began and he still showed no signs of 
retiring, all parties in the state seem to have combined to expel him. 
The fact that there was an alliance between the different orders 
seems to be shown by the character of the board of archons which 
took up the government after his fall. This was a mixed board of ten 
members, five belonging to the Eupatridae, three to the Geomori (here 
called ciypoLKoi), and two to the Demiurgi. The Berlin fragment being 
imperfect as to the numbers, it has hitherto been supposed that the 
board had nine members, that being the regular number of the 
archons, and that the Eupatridae had only four representatives, which 
would make them a minority of the whole college. It was perhaps to 
avoid that condition that the number ten was fixed upon. We have 
not sufficient evidence to show for what reason the old class quali- 
fication was resorted to, instead of the property qualification intro- 
duced by Solon. No doubt the latter was very unpopular among the 
aristocracy, as admitting the rich parvenus to an equality with 
themselves. They were therefore anxious to revert to the old system ; 
but the other classes having probably assisted in the overthrow of 
Damasias, and having made good their footing in official life since 
the reforms of Solon, it was impossible to eject them summarily, and 
they were therefore admitted to the new board, but under the guise of 
the old class qualification. This, presumably, did not give satisfaction ; 
for in the absence of any statement to the contrary we must suppose 
that the Solonian system was re-established in the following year. 

aypoUmv : the important letters of this name are unfortunately 
illegible in the MS., but a trace of what appears to be the tail of 
the p is visible. The Berlin fragment is said to read airoiKoi, but 


Acat ovTOi Tov fiera Aafiaaiav \ri]p^a[y ejuiavTov. 
a)\o-T€J SrjXov on /xeyLcrTrjv dx^v 8vvafiiv 6 apxcov 
<f)aivovTai, yap alel a-r^ajcrtd^ovTes Trepl ravTTjs rrjs 
ap^rjs. oAtay 8e SiereXovv voaovure? to, irpos 
iavTovs, 01 jxev ap^^v koI Trpocfyacrtu e\ovT€s ttjv 
Twv xp^mv aTTOKoirr^v, crvvelSefiyKeL yap avrols yeyo- 
V€vai TTiVTjaLV, OL Sc Tjj TToXiTeLo, 8v(rx€paivovT€s 8ia 
TO fieyaXrju yeyovevat jxeTa^oXrjv, evioi Se 5[ta rr^vj 
Trpos aXXrjXovs ^iXoviKLav. r](rav [5'] ai crTacreii 

it can hardly be the true word. Apart from the fact that aypoiKot 
corresponds with the name of the middle class as it is otherwise 
known (yeafiopoi), it is the very name which Dionysius of Halicar- 
nassus (Rom. Ant. II. 8) mentions as that of all those who were not 
Eupatridae ; and Hesychius {s. v. aypoi&Tai) explains that word thus, 
aypoiKoi, Koi yci/os 'AOijVTiinv, ot avTiSiecTTeXKovTo jrpbs tovs evTrarpibas' rjv 
Se TO tS>v yeapymv, Koi Tpirop to tS>v 6rjpiovpyS>v, 

alei: this spelling is so commonly found in the MS. that it seems 
hetter to retain it in the text where it occurs. 

01 ii€v . . . oi Se : these two classes are not the upper and lower 
classes, since the latter would have no reason to complain of a great 
/*€raj3o\ii in the constitution, but different sections of the upper class, 
some of whom disliked the reforms of Solon on account of the 
pecuniary loss they incurred thereby, while others were angry at the 
loss of the political supremacy which they had hitherto enjoyed. The 
reforms of Solon were very far from producing a peaceful settlement of 
affairs. Except for the four years immediately after his term of office 
there was almost perpetual dissension until the establishment of the 
tyranny of Pisistratus ; and that in turn led immediately to the 
reforms of Cleisthenes. In fact the Solonian constitution, though 
rightly regarded as the foundation of the democracy of Athens, was 
not itself in satisfactory operation for more than a very few years. In 
this respect it may be compared with the constitutional crisis of the 
Great' Rebellion in England. The principles fox which the Parliament 
fought the King were not brought into actual practice until after a 
return to Stuart rule and a fresh revolution ; and yet the struggle of 
the earlier years of the Long Parliament and the principles of Eliot 
and Pym are rightly held to be the foundation of the modern British 

^aav S' ai (rTaaeis ac.t.X. : the Story of the rise of Pisistratus is sub- 
stantially the same as that which we know already from Herodotus 
and Plutarch. 

D a 


rpels, fiLa jxlv toov irapaXlxov, &V TrpoeiarrjKei Meya- 
kXtJs o 'AXKjxloivos, o\t'\iTep iSoKOVV fidXicTTa SicoKecv 
TTjv fi€(r7)v TToXtTeiav aXXr] 8e tcou ireSia^K&vj, oi ttjv 
bXiyap-)(iav i^-qrovv, rjyelTO d' avToov KvKovpyos' 
TpiTT) 8' Tf TOOV diUKpicov, icj) jf TeTuyfievos T]V 
YieKriarpaTOS, 8r)p,OTiK00TaTos eivai 8okcov. irpoa- 
eKeK6ap,-qvT0 81 tovtols ot re a<l>\7J\pT]p.€V0L ra XP^'^ 
Sia Trjv a7ro/)[i]aj', /cat ol tw yevei p-rj KaOapoL 8i.a 
Tov (po^ov aripiLov 8', on p-era ttjv rvpavvcov 
KaTaaTaaLV eiroiyjaav 8La(j)r]p,i(Tp,ov toy TroXXatv koi- 
vcovovvTcov Trjs iroXLTelas ov Trpoa-rJKOv. €u\ov 8' 
cKacrroi rag eTrcovvpLas oltto twv T\o^Trcov iu oly 

'AXKfiiapos : the spelling of the MS. is retained, which consistently 
has e for the more usual at in this word and its cognates, such as 
'AKK/ifcDviSai. In the patronymic the spelling varies between a and o 
(c/. ch. 20). ' 

irebiaKav : this is the form used by Aristotle elsewhere (Pol. V. 5, 9), 
and it is probably the right reading here ; for, though the termination 
is lost, the a is certain. Plutarch uses the form mbiiav. 

hia TOW ^oQov : sc. of a return to the aristocratic regime of class and 
family qualifications, in place of the Solonian property qualification. 
But though they feared a distinctly and avowedly aristocratic basis of 
government, they showed that they were oligarchic in sympathies by 
the resolution which Aristotle records in the next sentence, the point 
of which is to prove that the supporters of Pisistratus were not all 
democratic in their views. 

SuKJiTjiiia-fuiv : i. e. a proclamation. The word does not seem to be 
found elsewhere, but the verb dia(priiii((iv occurs in Dionysius of Hali- 

elxou 8' exao-Toi k.t.X. : the three local divisions of the Plain, the 
Shore, and the Mountain corresponded with differences of class which 
account for their being taken as the basis for political divisions. In 
the Eleusinian and Athenian plains lived the rich landowners who 
represented the old aristocracy ; to the shore belonged the commercial 
classes, who were well off but not attached by sympathy or tradition 
to the ultra-oligarchical party ; while the rough uplands were oc- 
cupied by the poorer classes of cultivators, who had no voice at all 
in the state until Solon admitted them to the ecclesia and law-courts. 


14' ArjfioTiKcoTaToy 5' eivat boKmv 6 Ylei<TL(rTpaTos, 
Kol (TCfyoSp' evSoKLfirjKms eV tS irpos M[ey]apeay 

14. €6So(et/«;i£a)r€i'Tffl7rposMe'yap€ay7roXe;i(»: the date of this Megarean 
campaign is of some importance in reference to the age of Pisistratus. 
The fact of his having earned distinction in a campaign against 
Megara is confirmed by Herodotus (I. 59), jrporepov euSoKifi^o-as eV t^ 
Trpbs Meyapeas yevofievri orpaTijyti;, Niffatdv tc eXtof, Km oKKa dnoSe^afievos 
fifyoiKa fpya, and Plutarch (Sol. 8) represents it as having occurred in 
the successful war against Megara which was the result of the first 
appearance of Solon in public life, some time about 600 B.C. This is 
accepted by most modem historians (cf. Abbott, I. 399), Grote, though 
he argues that the dates make it practically impossible, believing that 
Herodotus intended to refer to that war. There seems to be no 
sufficient reason for the latter assumption, which, however, is not 
of great importance, since Herodotus is not preeminent for chrono- 
logical accuracy ; but, so far as the actual facts are concerned, it is clear 
both that the war in which Pisistratus distinguished himself cannot be 
that which was undertaken under Solon's influence, and that there 
must have been another war against Megara between the date of 
Solon's legislation and that of the first tyranny of Pisistratus. To 
have served with distinction in war (without laying stress on the 
phrase of Herodotus, 'Sia-aiav i\a>v, which would imply that he was in 
a station of command) he cannot have been less than eighteen years old, 
which would make him ninety-one at his death in 527 B. C. Thucydides 
(VI. 54) says that he died yrfpaios, but that does not imply that he had 
reached an age so far beyond the ordinary duration of life in those 
times; and it is highly improbable that he should have reached the 
age of fifty-eight (which would then have been considered old age) 
before making his attempt on the tyranny, and eighty (or nearly) 
when he finally settled himself in power. Further, Aristotle himself 
declares the story to be impossible on the ground of the dates (infra, 
ch. 17, (pavepms Xi/poO<rt (j)d<TKOi'Tes ipap^vov eivai IltaitrTparov SoKavos Koi 
(TTpaTTjyeiv iv ra rrpbs Meyapeas noKcfia Trepi SaXafieicos' oi yap evSexerai 
ra'ts ijAiKiair). On the other hand, it is certain that a successful war 
against Megara must have been fought after the date of the legislation of 
Solon. We know from Plutarch (c. 12) that after the capture of Salamis 
by Solon, and about the time of the expulsion of the Alcmaeonidae, the 
Megarians renewed the war and recaptured Nisaea and Salamis. This 
disaster led to the visit of Epimenides to purify the city from the curse 
which still seemed to attach to it, and the visit of Epimenides appears 
to have been followed very closely by the legislation of Solon. There 
is no indication of any re-conquest of Salamis or Nisaea by Athens in 
the interval, and therefore it may be held to be certain that it did not 
take place till a later period. Now supposing Pisistratus to have been 


iroXefio), KaTaTpavfrnria-as eavrov (rvveTreicre rov 
Srjfiov, as Trapa tcov avTia-raa-icoTCov ravra irewov- 
d[<o]s, (ftvXaK^v eavrS Sovvai tov craifiaTos, 'ApLcr- 
Tiayvos \y\p\a^avTOS rrjv yveo/XTjv. Xaficou 8e tovs 
Kopvvr](])6pov9 KaXovjxevovs, kiravaaTas \iera tovtcou 
TOO St^/xco Kari(T\^ r^u aKpoiroXcv eVet Sevrepco Kai 
TpiaKoaTco p.eTa rr/u t5>v voficov decnv, ein K[o)/x,Jeou 
apxovTos. Xiyerai 5e '^oXoiva, YiujicrTpaTOV ttqv 
(j)vXaKrjv alrovvTos, avriXe^ai Koi €hrel\y o\ti twv 
pkv el'77 (ro(j)c6Tep09, rmv 8' avSpeto^Tepojs' oaoi fieu 
yap ayvoovaL Yiicria-TpaTov eTriTcdefievov rvpav^vlSij 
(ro(l)(OT€pos elvai tovtcov, oaoi 5* elSorey KaTaata- 

about seventy at the time of his death, which is as high as we can safely 
go, he must have been bom about 600 B. C. At the age of thirty or thirty- 
five he may reasonably have been in command of an expedition against 
Megara (Aristotle's word a-TpaTrjyelv confirming Herodotus' Nto-ami' 
eXatv), which may be assigned approximately to 565 B.C. Accepting this 
date it is easy to understand how the reputation won by his successful 
conduct of it would help him powerfully in his bid for the tyranny, which 
would hardly be the case if his victory were some forty years old. 

eiSoKiiirjKa)! : the augment is omitted, as it also is in the MSS. of 
other Attic writers, e.g. Aristophanes' Clouds, 1031 ; Xen. Hell. VI. i, 2. 

'Aptariavos : Plutarch (Sol. 30) gives the name as Ariston. 

erei Sevripa Kal TpiaKoa-ra: this is probably a slip on the part of 
Aristotle, since the archonship of Corneas and the first accession of 
Pisistratus to power fall in 560 B. C, while the legislation of Solon is 
fixed with fair certainty in 594 B.C. At the same time the authorities 
are not unanimous, and 591 B.C. is a possible date for Solon ; but this 
would involve an alteration in the date of Damasias and the other 
events mentioned at the beginning of ch. 13. 

Kffljticou : in Plutarch {Sol. 32) the name is spelt Ka>p,ias. The matter 
is not of importance, but the authority of Aristotle is entitled to the 
preference, and this MS. is much older than any of those of Plutarch. 
On the Parian marble the two middle letters are missing. 

Xeyerai S6\ava k.t.}!.. : c/. Plutarch {c. 30). 

nia-ifTTparov : the spelling of this name in the MS. varies, the diph- 
thong being used at first and afterwards the single vowel. 

KaraaiamSxriv : MS. KaTaa-tmiravTes, clearly a clerical blunder caused 
by the participle preceding. 


irSxriv avSpeiorepos. eVei 8e Xiycov [Trparrei ovjdeu, 
igapa/ievos to, oirXa irpo ratv 6vpS>v avros p.ei> 60?; 
fie^orjdrjKivaL rrj TraTpiBi Ka& oaov rjv Svvaros {rjSr) 
yap (r<p68pa TrpeafivTrjs ^v), d^iovv 8e /cat tovs aXXovs 
TavTo TOVTO TTOielv. "^oXmv [/xev ovv ov]8ei> ■^vvcrev 
Tore irapaKaXav Ui(ricrTpaT09 8e XajSap ttjv dpxw 
OLcpKei Ta KOLva iroXiTiKas p-dXXov ^ TvpavuiKas. 
ovirco 8e r^y dp^rjs ippt^mp.ei'ijs ofiocppovrjcrai/Tes 
[olj wepl Tov MeyuKXea kou top AvKovfpyojv i^e^a- 
Xov avTov eKTCp €T€l fierd tt]v irpmnqv KardcTTaacv, 
e^' 'HyrjCTLOv dp^ovrog. erei 5e 8(o8eKdTcp fxerd 
ravra TrepLeXavv6p.evos 6 Meya/cX^y rfj o-rdcrei, 

e^apafievos TO. onXa k.tX.: MS. e^aipa/ievos. For the story, t/ Plutarch 

oujTffl Trjs dpxrjs eppif<»/ievi)s : Aristotle is clearly following Herodotus' 
Tiji/ TvpavviSa ovkco Kapra ippi^iofiivtjv e)(av (I, 6o). The date which 
Aristotle adds, exra eVet p,eTa rrju irpiirriv KaTaaraaiv i<p' 'Hyrjalov apxpvTOS) 
is, however, new, and the name of the archon is otherwise unknown. 
This will place the first expulsion of Pisistratus in 555 B.C., and helps 
to clear up the disputed points in the chronology of his life. Herodotus 
says merely p^era oi jroXvv xpo"""! and this, coupled with the phrase 
ovira eppi^afjievriv, would justify Curtius' belief that the first tyranny 
lasted only about a year, were it not for the direct statement of 

?T« Se ScoSfKara imcto. ravra : Aristotle gives us plenty of materials for 
determining the chronology of Pisistratus, but unfortunately they are 
absolutely irreconcileable. The two extreme dates are certain, viz, 
560 B.C. for his first seizure of the tyranny, and 527 B.C. for his death. 
In ch. 17 Aristotle tells us that of the thirty-three years between these 
two points he reigned for nineteen and was in exile during the rest. 
This, in the first place, diflfers from Aristotle's own statement in Po/. 
V. 12 that he was in possession of the tyranny for seventeen years out 
of thirty-three : and the details which are given in the present narrative 
fail to clear up the obscurity. He tells us that the first expulsion took 
place inrta erfi, or five full years after the first establishment of the 
tyranny; that the return and establishment of the second tyranny 
occurred haiv^ara erei p^ra ravra; that the second expulsion took 
place erei poKurra efidopa pera rfjv KaSoSov, and the final return evSeKarif 
eret. These periods, added together, amount at the lowest computation 

40 API2T0TEA0T2 

ttoXlv eTTLKrjpvKevo-afxevos irpos [roji' Tli(ri(rTpaTOV 
icf) a re r^v dvyarepa avTov Xr)\j/eTac, Karrjyayeu 
avTov ap')(CLLKS>s Kcu Xiav airXms. TrpoScacnreipas 
yap Xoyov a>s TrJ9 'Adrjva^ Karayovcnqs Yii(rt,- 
(TTparov, Kcu yvvatKa pieyakqv kcu KaXrjv i^evpcov, 

to thirty-two years, leaving only one for the third tyranny, which it is 
clear from all the accounts was the longest ; moreover, the two periods 
of exile amount to twenty-one years instead of the fourteen which 
Aristotle assigns to them in his summary of Pisistratus' career. It is 
certain, then, that there is a mistake somewhere, and the most probable 
place is the first period of exile. It is not spoken of, either by Hero- 
dotus or by Aristotle, as if it were so important as the second period, 
and no account is given of the movements of Pisistratus in the course 
of it. Taking ten years as the duration of the second exile, on which 
point Herodotus and Aristotle agree, four years are left for the first 
exile ; and if the durations of the first and second tyrannies are correct 
we get the following chronology of the career of Pisistratus after his ac- 
cession to power. First tyranny, 560-5 55 B. C. ; first exile, 555-551 B.C.; 
second tyranny, 551-545 B.C.; second exile, 545-535 B.C.; third 
tyranny, 535-527 B.C. As Aristotle is uncertain as to the exact length 
of the second tyranny, it is possible that its duration should be slightly 
curtailed, and the third correspondingly increased. It has hitherto 
been generally supposed that the final term of rule was longer in 
proportion to the other two than is here represented ; but no other 
arrangement seems possible without considerable violence to the text 
of Aristotle. Moreover eight or nine years are enough to prove the 
complete establishment of the despotism, and if we suppose the first 
and second periods to have been more or less disturbed by threatened 
attacks from Lycurgus and Megacles and their followers, whereas in 
the third Pisistratus was unassailed and was able at the end of it to 
hand his power on to his sons without question, a sufficient difference 
between it and the earlier periods is indicated to account for the way 
in which Herodotus and Aristotle speak of it. 

It may be noticed that according to this arrangement the embassy 
of Croesus to Greece, to make an alliance with the most powerful Greek 
state, falls in the second tyranny of Pisistratus. This, however, is quite 
in harmony with the words of Herodotus (I. 59), ro fiev 'Attikov kotcxo- 
fievov re Kat Siea-Traa-neuov envvddvfTO 6 Kpoltror iuro Hficria-TpaTov tov 'Itttto- 
Kpareos, TOvrov Toi/ xP^vov TvpavvevovTOs ' A.6r)vaiaiv. According to this 
passage Athens was at that time under Pisistratus, but his rule was 
not yet firmly established and was still threatened by rival parties ; 
a state of things such as we suppose to have existed during the second 
period of tyranny. 


ojy fx^v 'H/)o5oroy (j)T](riv e'/c tov Si^fiov t(ov Haiavecov, 
toy 8 kvioL Xeyovo-if €k tov KoXvttov a-reipavoTrcoXiu 
Qpyrrav, fi ovo/xa ^vrj, rrju deov aTrofiifirja-d/jLevos 
rm Koa-ficp \_KaTi^'j'yaye[yj fier avrov, koI 6 fikv 
UiatarpaTos i(f)' ap/xaros ela-^Xavue TrapaifiaTOvarTjs 
Trjs yvvaiKos, ol 8' iv ra aa-rei. trpoa-KwovvTes 
i8i^ovTO 6avp.d^ovT€s. 

15- 'H p,€v odv TrpcoTT] Kddo8os e[y€V]ero Toiavrr]. 
fiera 8e ravra, toy e^eTrecre to 8evTepov eTci fidXicrTa 
e^SofJup /x€Ta Tfjv KoidoSov, — ov yap ttoXvv )(p6vov 
Karea-xev, aAA[a] Sict to prj fiovXe&Oai Trj tov 
MeyaKXeovs 6vyaTp\ crvyyivea-dai (f)ofir]0eh dp- 
<j)OT€pas TOLS (TTda-eis VTre^TJXdei'' kcu ,irpa>Tov pev 
(TvucpKKre Trepi tov Qeppaiov koXttov yoapiov 
KoXeiTaL 'PaiKTjXos, eKcWev 5e TraprjXdev els tovs 
irepl Tlayyaiov tottovs, odev ')(p'r]paTL(Tdp£vos Koi 
(TTpaTLCOTas piaOcoaapevos, iXdwu els '^peTpiav 
ivScKaTcp TToXiv €Tei, TO irpSiTov dvaa-axrourdai jSia 

tftrja-h : MS. (^17, but it is hardly likely that Aristotle should have used 
this shortened form, which appears to occur only in Anacreon. 

i7Te(f>avona>\w : so Athenaeus, XIII. p. 609. 

15. as cieTrea-e k.t.X.: the construction of this sentence is ungram- 
matical, as there is no principal sentence on which the clause as e^enfae 
can depend. The syntax can be restored by striking out Kai before 
irpSrrov /lev and taking ov yap . . me^rjXdev as a parenthesis ; but it is 
more probable that Aristotle broke off his original construction at 
ov yap, and forgot to resume it. 

wpSiTov p-ev K.T.X. : Aristotle is fuller than Herodotus in his account of 
the movements of Pisistratus during his second exile. His mention of 
the residence at Rhaicelus and in the neighbourhood of Pangaeus 
explains the reference in Herodotus to the supplies which Pisistratus 
drew air& 'Srpvp^vos jrora/xoS. Herodotus mentions no other place of 
retirement than Eretria, while it appears from Aristotle that he did not 
go to that place until he was already supplied with men and money for 
his descent on Athens. 

'PaiKijXos : at first written PatKijSos-, but corrected. 


Tr]v a,p^r)u eVe^et/oet, avfnrpodvfiovfievcoi' avra iroX- 
Xa>v fi€v KotX aXKav, fxaXia-Ta 8e Qrj^auov kui 
AvySdfiios Tov ^a^iov, ert 8e tcov hnrecov tcov 
[Col. 6.]' e)(6vT(ov iv 'Kperpia rrjv TroXiTelau. VLKrjcras 8e 
TTjv eiri YlaXXrjvidL ^p.d^rjjv koI Xa^av \Tr)v dp')(i]^v 
Kol irapeXop-evos tov dr]p.ov ra oirXa Karel^ev rjBr) 
Trjv TvpavviBa fie^aicos, [kol] eiy Na^oj' eA[^la)i' 
ap^ovra KariaTrjae AvyBapuv. TrapeTXev 8e tov 
8t)p.ov to, oirXa T6v8e tov Tpoirov. i^oTrXccriav iu 
r[roj 'AvaKeia Troirjadpievos eKKXrjcrid^eiv eVe^eipei, 
^(f)covfj 8' i^eKXrjcrQaaei' puKpoV ov (paa-KOVTCov 8e 
KaTUKOveiv eKeXevaev avTOVS irpoaav^a^^rj^vai^ irpos 
TO TrpoTTvXov TTjs oLKpoiToXecos tva yeytovrj p.a.XXov. 
iv m 8" eKelvos BieTpi^e 8r]p,r)yopcov, dveXovTes 
ol eVt TOVTCov TeTayp.€voi to, OTrXa avTwv [koL 
crvyjKXrjLaavTe9 els [raj irXTjo'lov olKT]fiaTa tov 
QrjaeLov 8i€<7rjpr]vav iX$6vT€s Trpos tov Iliaia-Tpa- 
toV 6 8e [eVei Tjov dXXov Xoyov i-TreTeXeaev, eiire 

Ttjv eVl naWtjviSi lidxr/v: the scholiast on Aristoph. Acharn. 234 refers 
to this passage ; IlaXXijvaSe" 01 IlaXXijvEts S^fidr eVrt t^s 'ATTtie^r, hiBa 
Jl€t(Tt(rTpdT<o ^ov\ofjL€vc^ Tvpavvetv Koi *Adrjvaiois dixvvofi€Vois aiiTOP trvveaTrf 

TToKefios nffivtjTm 8e tovtov koi 'AvSporiiov xal 'AptororeXijr iv 'Adrj- 

vaiav 7roXiT«9 (Rose, Frag. 355). 

TrapeiXei/ Se k.tX. : the story of this stratagem is told by Polyaenus 
(Strateg. I. 21, 2). 

e^o7rXt<riac : MS. e^ojrXao'iai'. 

^mirf i^tKKr]a[aiT(v piKpov : this restoration is not proposed with much 
confidence. The sense, as appears from Polyaenus, is that Pisistratus 
intentionally spoke in a somewhat inaudible voice, and when the people 
complained that they could not hear him invited them to a more con- 
venient spot, to which they followed him, leaving behind their arms, 
which they had stacked according to custom. 

fltcTptjSc: apparently written SierpeijSe in the MS. Similarly elsewhere 
Kfiviiv, x"Xiour. 

Terayp-evoi. ; before this word there is an erasure of one or two letters 
in the MS. 


Kai irepi tcov ottXcov to yeyovos, \Xiycov ms ov xpv\ 
davfxd^eiv oy[5e KaTojdvfMeiv, dXX' d-Ki\66vras kin 
TOiv ISuav, TCOV 8e KOLvav [avr^ vvv\ fieX-^aeadai 

1 6. ['H ii\v odu Hijaia-TpaTOu Tvpauvh i^ dp-)(rjf 
T€ KaTecTTT] ^TOvTov^ Tov TpoTTOv Kou [/tierajSolAay ^arx^ 
ToaavTas. SimKet 5' 6 WKriaTpaTOs, axnrep eipiQ- 
[^Kafievj, Tr]v ttoXlv fieTplcos koL p,dXXov ttoXltikws 
r) TvpavviKoas' ev re yap toIs ^[etr/ioty (j)ijXdudpeo7ros 
rfv Kai Trpdos koL toIs dp.apTauovac trvyyvcop-ovLKOs, 
Kol 8rj KOL TOIS d^Trojpoi^sj TrpoeSdveL^e ■xplvf^^'}''^ 
irpos Tas ipyaacas, maTe Siaynrejpes eyeapyovvTO. 
TovTO 8' iiroieL Svoiv [^^cTj/Oii', ti'ra] /x^re eV rro dcrTei 
SiaTpifimcriv dXXa hieairappiivoi Kwra ttjv ^co/jai', 
KOU oTTCos [eu7ro]/)oi)i/rey twp p.eTpioov kol yrpos Tots 
[iJSiOiy ovTes pir]T imOvp^ma-i fii^Te (rxoXd^faxrii'^ 
eTrip-eXeicrdai twv KOivav. dp.a Se (TVve^aLvev avTa 
Kot Tas irpoaobovs ylveaQai /(/.[et^ojuy i^epya^op.epr]s 
TTjs xtopas' iwpaTTeTO yap diro tcov yiyvop-ivav 
SeKdTiju. 810 KOU Tovs Kara [S^/iJofy KaTeaKeva^e 
8iKa<TTas Kal avTos i^y^i 7roAXa/cty ely Trjv yapav 

16. iyeapyovvTo : MS. eyfapyovvrai ; the copyist seems at first to have 
written yeapyovvrai, and then an e has been prefixed above the line, 
with the view of altering the word to the imperfect, but the termination 
is accidentally left unaltered. The middle is not otherwise known. 

TOVTO 8' i'n-oUi K.T.'\. : cf. Aristotle, Pol. V. 11, where the house of Pi- 
sistratus is mentioned among the tyrants who undertook great public 
works as a means of keeping the people poor and constantly occupied. 

hiKoTifii: Boeckh {Public Economy, III. f. 6) mentions this tithe, but 
the evidence has hitherto been of doubtful authority. Thucydides 
(VI. 54) mentions an ciKovTr) as levied by the Pisistratidae (his phrase 
perhaps including Pisistratus himself also), and both Grote and Abbott 
speak of this as the only tax of the kind then levied, Grote expressly 
refusing to accept the evidence for the higher tax. 

e'^ijet : MS. e^Tjet. 


eTria-KOTrav [/cai] StaX^XaTrjcov roiis Sia^epofxevovs, 
oirays fiy Kara^aivovTes els to acTTV Trapa/xeXmai 
Tcov layplmv. TOLavrrjs yap tlvos e^oSov t^ Hiai- 
aTpdrco yiyvopeurjs a-vp^rjvai (paaL ra irepl rov ev 
T^ ^YprjJTTm yempyovvra to KXrjdev vaTepou ■)(a>pLOV 
(XTeXes. iScov yap Tiva TraTTaXa TreTpas (TKairTOVTa 
Kol ipya^ofievov, Sia to davfidaai tov 7ra[rraXoj^J 
iKeXevei/ [epleaOat, tl yiyveTai e/c tov j(copLOV 6 8', 
oaa KaKO, Kal oSvvaL, e^r;, Kal tovtcov twv KaK&v kclI 
T&v \o^8vvS>v YiLaicTTpaTov del Xafieiv ttjv 5e[Ka]- 
tt)v. p.€v ovv avOpwiros \ajire^KpL^vaTO dyvomv, 6 
Be Hia-icTTpaTos rjaOils 8ia ttjv TrappricrLav kcu ttjv 
(piXepyiav [alreX^ dirdvTcov eTroLTjaev avTov. ovSev 
8e TO ttXtjOos ov8' iv toIs dXXoLS wapco^Xei /cara ttjv 
dpXWi dXX' aiel Tr^oi^petrK^evja^ev eiprjvrjv /cat e[T]?)/)ei 
8\j.j rjcrv^Lav 8lo Kal iroXXotKis [Trapmpid^^eTO as 

[^] UKTKTTpaTOV TVpaVVLS 6 CTTt K^Oi'[ou] filOS €17)' 

avve^r] yap va-Tepov 8ta [r^y fJ/Q^ecoy] Tmv v'Ueov 
TToXXm yevecrdai Tpa^vTepav ttjv dp-)(r]v. peytcTTOv 
8e TrdvTcov rjv \tS)v dpecTKO^pevcov to 8rjpoTiKov eluai 
Tw -qdei Kal (piXdvOpcoirov. ev re yap roty aAAofiy 
etco^etj iravTa Sloik€lv KaTO. tovs vopovs, ovBepiav 
iavTw TrXeove^iav 8l8\ovs Kal 7ror]e irpocrKXrjdels 
(j)6vov BiKrjv els 'Apeiov 7ray[oi'] avTos peu dirrjVT'qaev 
my yaTToXoY/rjaopevos, 6 8e TrpoaKaXeadpevos (po^rj- 
deis eXuirev. 8lo Kal ttoXvu ■)(p6vov epeive Wvpavvayv, 

'YfirjTT^ : the reading is doubtful, but this is the locality named by 
Apostolius {cf. next note). 

warraKa : the word is very doubtful, except the first two letters. The 
story is told, though not in the same words, by several of the collectors of 
proverbs (cf. Zenobius, Cent, iv, Prov. 76 ; Apostolius, Cent, x, Prov. 80). 

Kai TTOTc Trpo(rK\r]6els k.t.X. : cf. Arist. Pol. V. 12, Plut. Sol. 31. 


el'Jr eKweo-oi ttoXlv iTreXdfi^ave paBioas. i^ovXovro 
yap KOL Tmv yvoopi/xcov Kol rmv [prjfioJTtKwv ol ttoXXol' 
Tovs fiev yap raty OfiiXlais tovs 8e rals els ra 'i8ia 
^orjOeiais [axpeXrja-evj, Ka). Trpos a/jLCporepovs i7re(l)VK€i 
KaXoos. rjaav fie kcu toIs 'AdrjuatoLS ol Trepl tS>v 
\TV\pavwiv vo/xoi irpaoi /car eKeiuovs tovs Kaipovs 
01 T aXXoL KCU 8r] koX 6 ixaXiara /ca^r^KJeoj/ irpos tt]s 
Tvpavvibos. vofios yap avrols rjv oBe' Oiap-La rdSe 
'AOrjvai^cov eVrtJ Trdrpia, idv [rtj'jey rvpavvelv eVa- 
vuTTOiyvjTaL [77] eVt TvpavviBi 7't(y) (rvyKadLo-Trj rrjv 
TvpavviSa aTLfion/ eivjai avrou /cat yivos. 

17. YltcriaTpaTos jxev odv iyKarey-Qpaae rfj dp^rj 
Kul d7r\edjave voarjaa^s eVi] ^iXoveco dp^ovTOS, a0' 
01) fxev KareaTT) to TrpaTov Tvpavvos eV?; r/Oia[/coli'rr]a 
/cai Tpia ^icoaas, a 8' eV rjj dp^fj Bie/JLeivev evos 
8eovTa eiKoaf e^^yyjev yap Ta Xouird. 8to Ka\ 
(j)av€pws Xrjpova-L (f)aaK0VT€s epcofxevov eivat Uiai- [Col. 7.] 
(TTpaTov ^oXcovos /cat aTpaTrjyelv iv tS wpos Me- 
yapeas iroXefxa) Trepl ^aXap.elvos' ov yap evSe^eTai 
Tois T^XiKiais eav tls dvaXoyi^rjTai tov eKarepov 
^iov Kal icf)' ov direOavev dp^ovTos. TeXevT-qaavTos 
8e YleiarKTTpaTov Karel^ov ol vlets ttju dp^-qv, irpoa- 
yayovTes Ta irpayfiaTa tov avTov Tpowou. rjaav 8e 

irpbs Trjs TvpavviSos : MS. Ttpos T{riv) t())j) TvpavviBos, which seems to be 
a confusion between wpos rr/v rvpavviba and itpos ttjs rvpavviSos. Probably 
the copyist began to write the former but changed to the latter, and 
forgot to strike out the rrjv. 

17. iyKareyfipaire ; MS. fVKareyripacri. 

iici ^CKovea apxovros : the name of Philoneos does not occur in the 
list of archons previously known to us, but may now be inserted for 
the year 527 B. C. On the chronology of Pisistratus' life here sum- 
marised, see notes on ch. 14, tiSoKifiriKms k.t.\. and erei de daSeKara 



8vo /xep €K T7]5 yafieTTjs, 'linrias kcu lirirap^os, 8vo 
5' e'/c rrjs 'Apyeias, 'lo(f)(ov /cat 'YiyrjalaTpaTOS, c5 
wapcovvfiiov rjv GeVraXoy. eyrj/xev yap YiicncrTpaTos 
i^ "Apyovs avBpos 'Apyeiov dvyarepa, m bvofia rjv 
VopyiXos, TLp-mvaacrav, rji/ Trporepov ea")(€v yvvaiKa 
'Apylvos 6 ^ApjirpaKKorrjs twv ^v^€\l8S>v odev kou 
r) wpos Tovs 'Apyelovs iveaTT] (piXia, kcu crvvep,a-^ 
■)(€cravTO ^iXioL rrju eV TlaXX7]vi8i p-a^rjv Yieiaia- 
Tparov KOfiiaavTos . yrjfiaL 8e (fxKri ttjv 'Apyeiav ol 
fi€u eKireaovTa to irpcoTOv, ol fie Kariyovra rrjv ap\rjv. 
1 8. 'Hcrav 8e Kvpioi rwv p,€v irpayp.aTav 8ia ra 
a^LCop,aTa kou 8ia ras rjXiKias "liTTrap^os kcu 'iTnrlas, 
irpeafivTepos 8" a>v 6 'iTTTrlas kcu ry ^vaei ttoXltlkos 
KCU ep.(l)pcou €7r€crTaT€i Trjs ap^s. 6 Se Iinrapxos 
7raL8iOi>8r]s Kcu ipcoTiKos koI (piXop-ovcros r]v, kcu tovs 
irepX ' AvaKpeoi/ra koL ^ifJxoviSrjv Kctl tovs aXXovs 
TTOirjTas ovTos rjv o p.eTairep.irop.^vos' QerraXos 8e 
vecoTepos ttoXv kou tco ^lco dpacrvs kol v^ptaTrjs. 
a^ 01) Kai avve^T] ttjv ap-^rjv avTols yeveaOuL 

eK Trjs yanerrj! : the name of Pisistratus' first wife is not known. 

'HytjcrlaTpaTos, m wapavvfuov rjv QirraXos : Thessalus is mentioned by 
Thucydides (I. 20) and also by Plutarch {Caio, 24), who calls him the 
son of Pisistratus and Timonassa ; Hegesistratus is named by Hero- 
dotus (V. 94), who calls him iraiSa vodov yfyovora i^ 'Apy€lt]s yvvaiKos ; 
but there has been nothing hitherto to show their identity. Herodotus 
can hardly be correct in calling him illegitimate ; for Pisistratus must 
have been regularly married to Timonassa, if the union was accom- 
panied by an alliance with Argos. 

1 8. TOVS irepl 'AvaKpeovTa (cai St^cai/i'fii/v : the presence of these two poets 
at Athens under the patronage of Hipparchus is also mentioned in the 
pseudo-Platonic dialogue Hipparchus, p. 228 C. 

d^' o5 KOI avvi&T] k.tX. : in face of the direct testimony of Thucydides 
(VI, 54) it seems impossible to refer the relative to its natural ante- 
cedent, Thessalus, and it therefore seems better to treat the words 
eeTToXos . . . ippKTTqs as a parenthesis, and to suppose that Aristotle is 


travTCov rav KaKmv. ipacrdiis yap tov 'ApfioSlov 
/cat SiafxapTavcov rrjs 7r/)oy avrov ^iXias, ov Karel^^e 
TTjv bpyrjv aAA' ev re rols aXXoLS ivea-qiiaive to 
TnK^p6vj, Kol TO TeXevToiov p.iXXov(rav avTov tyjv 
aSeXcprjv Kavrjcpopelv YlavaOrjvaiOLS i^^KcojXvaev Xol- 
Boprjaas tl tov 'App,68Lov roy [xaXaKov ouTa, oOev 
(Tvve^r) Trapo^vvdevTas [rovj 'Ap/xoSiov kol tov 
'ApiCTToyeiTOva wpaTTeiv Trjv wpa^Lv fieTa iroXiTav 
iroXXav. ■^dr} 5e ^irapaTrjjpovvTes eV aKpoTroXet 
Tols UavadrjvaLOLg 'lirTriav {eTvy^avev yap ovtos 
p.€T€p-)(6p.evos, 6 d' iTTTra/j^oy airoaTeXXoav tt/v 
TTOfiTrrjv), ISovTes Ttva tcov kolvcovovvtcov ttJs irpa- 

still speaking of Hipparchus. Among the fragments of Heraclides 
Trepl TToXiTcias 'Adqvaiav (preserved in a Vatican MS., cf. Rose, Frag. 
611, ed.l886), a work whicli was evidently an epitome qf Aristotle, is 
the following summary of this passage, but so confused as to lend no 
assistance, ncio'iVrpaToy \y erri Tvpavyrjaas yrjpd<ras atredavev, "iTtirap^os 
6 uioy TlfunaTp&TOv TraiSiaSrjs rju Ka\ ipanKos Kai (f>i\6pov<Tos, GetrtraXos 8e 
vemrepos koi Bpairvs, tovtov Tvpawovvra pfj hvvrjQtVTa (or -es) dvfXeii' 
"Ijrrrapxpv airexTeive (or -av) tou dStkcpov avrov. 'iTmtas 8e jriKpoTara 
ervpdvvei, Kai tov 'jvep\ otTTpaKKrp.ov vofiov elo'rjyrjfraTOj os eredrj 6ta tovs 
TvpavvmVTas. Koi aXXoi re waTpaKiaBqaav Kai Savdmnos Kai 'ApiixTeiSris. 

■KokiT&v : the first letters of this word are doubtful. Thucydides 
(VI. 56) expressly says that the conspirators were not many in number, 
i^trav be ov ^oXXoi oi ^vvopwp^oKOTes d(T(j)a\eias eveKa. 

iv dxponokfi : this differs from the account of Thucydides, who says 
that Hippias was in the Ceramicus, organising the procession, when 
Harmodius and Aristogeiton were alarmed by seeing one of their 
confederates talking to him. The account of Thucydides is more in 
detail than that of Aristotle, and particularises that the two murderers, 
on being thus alarmed, rushed inside the gates till they met Hippar- 
chus. It is moreover not likely that any of those who were going to 
take part in the procession would be in the Acropolis while the 
procession had not yet started. Aristotle's account is, however, also 
consistent with itself, in saying that they came down from the Acropolis 
to look for Hipparchus. 

o 8' "imrapxos dtrodTeWav ttjv jrofiTr^c: this again is not in accordance 
with Thucydides, who says it was Hippias who was arranging the 


[^JecBs- <f)Lkav6pa)ir(os ivTvyxavovra t^ '\inria kcu 
vofiLcravT€s fxrjvveiv, iSovXofievoi ti Spdaat irpo rrjs 
avW-qy^eoas, Kara^avTes Koi irpoe^avacrTavTes tSsu 
\aXku)v\ Tov jxlv "linrapxov 8MK\o(r'\fJiovvTa rrjv 
TTOfJiTrrjv Trapa to AecoKopeiou wwiKTeLvav. yryjv fiev 
odv oX^rju iXvixrjvavTO irpa^LV, avTwv 8' 6 p,€v 
'ApfJLoBLOs evdecos eTeXevTrja-ev viro rav 8\opv(^o\pa}v, 
6 S" ' ApiaTO^yejiTcov {jo-repov avXX7}<pdels kcu ttoXvv 
Xpovou aLKKrOeis. Kanqyoprjaev 8' ev [rjaiy avay- 
Kais TToXXmv ol kcu [rjj] (l)vaeL rav iincpavoov kcCl 
(piXoL TQis TvpavvoLS r](rav. ov [yap ej8vvavT0 
Trapa')(jprjp.a Xa^elv ov8ev t-)(yos rrjs irpa^ecos, aAA' 
6 Xey6jX€vos Xoyos a>s 6 'liririas airocTTrjcras airo 
Toav ottXcov tovs TTOfxirevovTas i(j)copaa€ tovs ra 
iyXeipiSia e^ovras ovk dXr)0r)9 iarLV ov yap 
iiripnrovTO fxeO' ottXcov, dXX' varepov tovto Kare- 
(TKevaaev 6 8rjixos. KaTTjyopei 8e rav tov Tvpavvov 
(f)iXa)v, as p.ev ol 8'qp.oTLKoi (j)a(rLv, eVtrT^Sey tua 
daefi-^aaieu dp.a kuI yevoiVTO dyevvels dveXovres 

wapa t6 AetBKopeiov : the exact phrase of Thucydides, which shows 
Arnold's conjecture irepi to be unnecessary. 

TToXiiv )(p6vov aiKurQels : Thucydides' ov pahltos SiereBrj. 

6 "Keyofievos \6yos k.t.X. : this is the Story given by Thucydides. In 
favour of his version it is to be noticed that if this fact be false the 
reason which he gives for the selection of the occasion of the Pana- 
thenaea for the attempt, namely, that then people could appear in arms 
without attracting suspicion, falls to the ground. On the other hand it 
is perhaps unlikely that the tyrants should have allowed the populace 
to carry arms on any occasion whatever ; and the conspirators might 
still select a time for their attempt when a great number of people 
would be collected together from all parts of Attica. Moreover Aris- 
totle would hardly have made a direct assertion as to the later origin 
of the practice of carrying arms at this festival unless he had been sure 
of the facts. 

aKri6r]s : MS. dXr)6€S. 


T0V9 avaiTiov9 kcu <f)iXovs eavrmv, o)? 8' evLoi 
X^yova-Lv, ovxi rrXaTTOfievos aAXa roiis a-vveiSoras 
efir)vv€u. Koi TeXoy tay ovk Tj^vvaro Travra iromv 
aTTodaveiv, eTrayyeiXafievos coy aXXovs ixr/vucrcov 
TToXXoiiy Koi TreiVay avrS top 'iTnriav Sovvai rrjv 
de^iav TTiVreffly )(apiv, toy eXa/Sev ovubicras OTt tco 
(j)oveL Tov d8eX(j)ov ttjv Se^iap SeScoKe ovtco Trapco- 
gvve TOV 'linriav axrff inro TrJ9 opyrjs ov Karei^ev 
iavTov aXXa cnraadfievos ttjv p.a)(cupav 8ie(f)0eipeu 


19. Mera 5e ravra (rvve^aivev ttoXXw Tpa^v- 
Tepav eiuai rrfu TvpavulSa' kcu yap did to TifuopeLU 
T(^ d8eX(f)iS Koi Sia to ttoXXovs dvrjprjKevai. Koi 
eK^e^XrjKevai ird(riv rjv diriaTos kcu iriKpos. eTei 
8e T€TapTcp fJiaXicTTa fieTa tov '\inrap')(ov davuTov, 
eVet KUKms etX^" '''" ^^ ''''? ^(^T^h ttjv yiovvv^iav 
i-jre^eLprjo'e Tei^i^eLv, coy e/cet fiedi8pvcr6fJievo9. iv 
TOVTOis 5' av i^eTvecrev vtto ILXeofiivovs tov Aa/ce- 
8r)fiovo9 /QacTiXe'coy, )(pr](rfJL6iv yivofievcov del toIs Aa- 
Accocrt KUTaXveiv t7]v TvpavvlSa 8id ToiavS" apr/ccj/]. 
01 (j)vya8es, a>v ol ' AXKfieoovi8at TrpoeLcrTrjKecrav, 
avTol p.€v 5t* avTcov ovk ■q8vvavT0 Troirjcracrdai ttjv 
Ka6o8ov, dXX' alei TrpocreTTTacoV kv re yap toIs [Col. 8.] 

TOV aSeX^ov : MS. raSfXc^ou, a curious synaloepha which is repeated 
a few lines below, raheK^ai for t«5 d8e\^ta. 

19. mKpos : it is almost certain that the MS. reading is maros, but if 
so it is plainly a slip of the copyist, and mKpos is sufficiently like that 
word to explain the blunder. 

Kaxas : the MS. at first had ev KoKm, but it is corrected to Kaxas. 

TTjv Movvvxiav twexfipta-e TMX'f«"' : this circumstance is not mentioned 
in the extant historians. 

AawSij/xoj/os : the spelling of the MS. is preserved. 



aXXois oh eirpaTTOV Bua^aXXovTO, kcCL reix^aravTes 
iu Ty X'^P'? A.L^v8pLov TO virep JJapvrjdos, ety o 
avve^rjXdov rives twv ck tov aa-recos, i^eTToXiopKr}- 
6r)aav vtto t&v rvpavvcov, odev vcrrepov /JLera ravTTjv 
T^v crvfji<j)opau ySov iu tols (tkoXiois alef 

aiai Ai^vSpiov TrpohaiaiTaipov, 

ol'ous oivSpa<s aTTtuXecras jiia^etr^at 

dyadov's re koL eviraTpCBas, 

Ob TOT eoetgaf olcdv 

TTaTepcov ecrav. 
diTOTvyxavovTes. oi)v iu a7r[a]o-t roty wAAoty ifiiadco- 
aavTO TOV iv AeX(j)OLS vecov oiKoSop-eiv odev eviro- 
prjaav xpr^p-aTcav, irpos rrjv tcov AaKcovcov ^orjOeiav. 
7] 8e Hvdla 7rpoe(j)epev alel rols KaKebaipiOVLOLs 
Xpr)(rTr]pia^op.evoL9 iXevdepovv ras 'Adrjvas. els 
TovT evdecos wpovTpe'^e tovs ^TrapTiaras, Kanrep 
ovTCov ^evcov avTols tcov JJeiaia-TpaTiScoV avve- 
/3aAAero 8e ovk eXaTTCo fioipav ttjs 6pp,T]s tols 

Ai^jfiidpiov : there is a reference to this passage in Schol. Aristoph. 
I-ysist. 666, AcLyj^iBpiov' ;^(»pioj' t^s 'ATnKtjs wept Trjv Hdpvrjdov fls o 
(TVVTJXdov Tiyes tojv ck tov atjTeoss &s (^ritriv ApitrroreXris iv Adrjvaiojv 
TToXiTela (Rose, Frag. 356). The passage of the same scholiast (1. 665) 
on XuKOTToSey, referring to Aristotle as using this name for the bodyguard 
of the tyrants, which Rose includes under the same number, is evidently 
from some other work. The scholiast (1. 1153) further refers to 
Aristotle as his authority for the summary which he gives of the 
expulsion of the Pisistratidae through the agency of the Spartans, in 
which one or two phrases are verbally quoted from the present passage 
(Rose, Frag. 357). 

aiaX Av^vhpiov : this song is also quoted by Athenaeus (XV. 695, 
scol. 22), and in Etym. Mag. j. v. inl Aei\|?u8pi(a /laxv- The compiler 
of the latter work seems, from other phrases used by him {e.g. &V 01 
'AXKpLcuojviSai TrpocarrjKfa-av), to have had the work of Aristotle before him. 

oJ TOT eSei^av : E. M. Sttot eSet^av, but the present reading, which is 
also given by Athenaeus, is much superior. 

(Tvve^dWfTo 8e k,t.\. : this certainly helps to explain the action of the 


KaKCocTLV -q irpos rovs 'Apyelovs Tols YleKriarTpaTidais 
inrapyovaa (f)LXla, to fxev ovv irpSyrov ' KyyiixoXov 
WK^a-Teikav Kara daXarrav k'xovTa arpaTidv. rjTTr}- 
[^e'l/Jroy 5' avrov kol TeXevrrjarauTOs 8ia to Kiveav 
^orjOrjaaL tov Qecra-aXov ^■)(OVTa -j^iXiovs hnreis, 
7rpo(ropyt(r6evTes Tm yevop-ivc^ KXeofievrjv e'fe- 
TrefiyJAav tov fiacnXea cttoXov e^ovTa /xei^co KaTO, yrju, 
OS cVet Tovs T(ov Qea-aaX&v linrets eviKr)(rev kcoXv- 
ovTUs avTov €LS TTjv 'Attiktjv wapievai, KaTaKXeiaas 
TOV 'iTTTTiav eiy to KaXovfievov HeXapytKov Tetj^oy 
iTToXiopKCL p,€Ta t5)v 'Kdrjvalcov. TrpocrKadrjfievov 
5' avTov (Tvverrearev iire^iovTas aXcovai tovs twv 
Tli(ri(rTpaTi8av vleis' o>v Xr](f)d€VTCov o/xoXoyLav eTrt 
rjj Tmv iraiScov (rtoTrjpia iroirja-ajx^voL kcu to. iavTav 
iv irevff ■^p.epais iKKOfiiaa/xevot TrapeScoKav ttjv 
OLKpoiroXiv Tolf 'AOrjvaioLS eVi 'ApiraKTidov ap- 
yovTos, KaTaa\6vTes Trjv TvpavvlSa p,eTa ttjv tov 

Spartans in expelling the Pisistratidae, but there is no reason to doubt 
that the reiterated command of the Delphic oracle had a great influence 
over them in the matter. 

' AyxifJ-oXov : in Herodotus (V. 63) the name is given as 'AyxinoXios, 
but in the note of the scholiast on Aristophanes, referred to above, the 
Ravenna MS. reads 'Ayp^i/ioXoy, 

xMovs : MS. xf'^'ows- 

KioKiovTas avTov els tijk 'AmKrjv irapievai ; so Herodotus (V. 64), 
cVjSaXoCo'i eir TrjV 'Attiktjv xwpriv, 

TO KciKoiiicvov HfKapyiKov Tfixos : the form JJeKapyiKov is confirmed by 
the scholiast on Aristophanes, while IleXaa-yiKov is used in the parallel 
passage in Herodotus (/. c.) and in Thuc. II. 17, 

eVi 'ApiraKTiSov apxovros : the word was at first written ApiraKtSov, and 
the r is inserted above the line. The name is a new one in the list of 
archons, and must be placed in the year 511 B.C. The expulsion of the 
Pisistratidae occurred in the fourth year of Hippias' sole rule (Thuc. VI. 
59, wavBeis iv rm TeTapra), which began in 514 B.C. It therefore falls in 
the official year 511-10 B.C. This harmonises with the statement 
below that the archonship of Isagoras, which was certainly in 508 B.C., 

E a 


irarpos reXevTrjv err] fiaXca-ra eTTTaKalSeKa, to. 8e 
(TVfiiravTa aiiv 61s 6 Trarrjp ^p^€u evos SelirevTrjKOVTa. 
20. KaTaXvdeiirrjs 8e ttJs TvpavviBos iaTacria^ov 
7r/)oy aAA[7^A]oi;y 'laayopas 6 TiadvSpov, ^iXos cov 
tS>v Tvpavvcov, /cat K.Xeia0€vr]s tov yevovs a>v rmv 
'AXKfieoviSmu. rjTTrjjxivos Se rais iraipeiais 6 
}^Xu(Tdevr)sirpo(rr]yayeTO tov Srjfiov, aTroSidovs tS 
TrXrjOei ttjv iroXiTuav. 6 8e 'laayopas eVtAetTTo- 
fxevoS Ty Svvafiei woXlv €7nKaXe(Tap,evos tov KAeo- 
p.ivr]v, ovTa eavTw ^4vov, a-vv€7r€iaeu iXavveiv to 
ayof, 8ia to tovs ' AXKfiecoulSas Sokclv eivai twv 
Ivayav. vire^eXdovTOs fie tov K-XeicrOevovs p-eT 
oXiymv, rjyrjXaTei Ta>v 'Adrjvalcou ewTaKoa-las o'cKias' 
TavTa fie Biairpa^apevos ttjv p,ev fiovXrjv iireLparo 
KaTaXveiv, 'laayopav 8e koI TpiaKoa-iovs tcov (j)iXa)v 
per avTov Kvp'iovs Kadiaravai ttjs iroXecos. ttjs fie 

was in the fourth year after the expulsion. The only statement which 
is not strictly in accordance with it is that of Thucydides (/. c.) that 
Hippias fought at Marathon in the twentieth year after his expulsion. It 
was actually twenty years and a few months afterwards ; but there is 
no reason to press the round number of Thucydides to the full extent 
of literal accuracy. 

ivos hn irevTTjKovTa : the scholiast on Aristoph. Wasps, 502, quotes 
Aristotle as saying that the tyranny lasted forty-one years (Rose, Frag. 
358), but if the citation is correct it must be from some other work. 
The forty-nine years named by Aristotle of course represent the total 
period from the first tyranny of Pisistratus to the expulsion of his sons, 
ignoring the periods of exile ; while the thirty-six years which Herodotus 
assigns (V. 65) include only the years of actual rule. It may be noticed 
that the latter total supports the period of nineteen years of government 
given to Pisistratus in the present work, as against the seventeen 
mentioned in the Politics [cf. note on ch. 14, ?rei hi BcaSfKorm). 

20. ea-raa-ia^ov irphs dXXjJXoDs K.r.X. : in this account of the rise, 
expulsion, and recall of Cleisthenes Aristotle follows Herodotus (V. 66, 
69, 70, 72) closely and sometimes almost verbally. 

fifT avTov : MS. fi(fT-n) TOV, the preposition being abbreviated, as 


/3ouA^y dvTca-Toicrrjs kcu (rvvadpourdevTos tov irXri- 
6ovs, ol fikv wepi TOV KXeofievrjv kol 'laayopav 
Kare0i;yoz/ ety ttjv aKpoiroXiv 6 8e Srjfios Svo pev 
rip.ipas 7rpo(rKade^6p.€vos €7roXt6pKei, ry Se TpLTy 
KXeofxevyv p.h kol tovs p-er avrov iravTas dcpUaav 
virQ(nr6v8ovs, KXeia-devrjv de kol tovs dXXovs (pv- 
■yaSas p,€T€7r€p.yfrauT0. KaTaa")(6vTos 5e tov dypov to, 
7rpayp,aTa KXeta-devijs rj-yep-av rjv kol tov 8rjp.ov 
Trpoa-TUTTjs. aiTUOTaToi yap (tx^^ov iyevovTO rrjs 
€K^oXrjs' Twv Tvpdvvwv oi 'AXKp.e(ovi8ai, kol a-Taaid- 
^ovT€s Ta TToXXd SieTeXfaav. ert 8e irpoTepov tS>v 
AXKp,eovidcov KrjScov eTredeTO roty TvpdvvoLS' 8io kol 
ySou Koi ely tovtov ev toIs aKoXiois' 

ey^et /cat Kt^Scdvi, hiaKove, prjh' eTnXTijdov, 

et XPV '''°'5 dyadolt; dvhpda-iv oivo-)(0€LV- 

2 1 . Aia p,ev ovv TavTas tols aiTias iiriaTevov 6 

Sr]p.o5 T(S K.Xeiadepei. totc Se tov ttXtjOovs wpo- 

eaTTjKcos eTei TeTupTm p.eTa ttju t&v Tvpavvcav KUTa- 

Xvcriv €7ri 'laayopov ap-)(pvTos, irpwTov piev ovv 

iravras a^Uaav imoa-novbovs : from the account of Herodotus it 
appears that this applies only to the Lacedaemonian force with 
Cleomenes, as the Athenians who were in the Acropolis were all put to 
death, with the exception of Isagoras. 

Krjbav : of this person and his attempt to expel the tyrants nothing 
seems to be known, but it must be one of the various attacks which the 
exiles are said to have made upon the Pisistratidae in the later years 
of the reign of Hippias (supr. ch. 19), among which was the disastrous 
occupation of Leipsydrium. 

ey;fet k.t.X. : quoted by Athenaeus (XV. 695, scol. 21), where, how- 
ever, the reading of the second line is «/ bq xPV ayadoh. 

21. eiria-revov : at first written imarevev, but corrected to the plural ; 
and, as the corrections in the MS. are generally entitled to respect, it 
seems better to accept the amended reading here. 

eret reraprffl . . . iiil 'la-ayopov apxovTos : the archonship of Isagoras is 
fixed by Dion. Hal. {Ant. I. 74, V. i) as occurring in 508 B. C. The 

54 Apistoteaots 

eveifie iravras ely 5e'/ca ^vXas avrl rmv reTTapoov, 
avafu^ai fiovXofievos ottcos fiiTaa\ai(ri TrXeiovs rrjs 
TToXiTelas' odev eXi\6r) kol to firj (j>vXoKpiveiv 
[Col. 9.] TTpos Tovs i^erd^eiv to, yevrj ^ovXojxevovs. eweiTa 
rrjv fiovXrfv 7rei'ra/coo-t[oi;y] avri TeTpaKoalcou K^arje- 
aTTjaev, irevTTjKovra e^ eKcio-Trjs (jyvXrjs' Tore d' 
rjLcrdjv eKarov. Sia tovto Se ovk els Sa>[8ejKa 
(f>vXa.s avvera^ev, OTrfcBy cc^vTm p-rj (Tvp-^aivrj p.epi^eLV 

Parian marble places it seventeen years before the battle of Marathon, 
but in this case it must be in error. As it is clear from Dionysius that 
the archonship of Isagoras was in an Olympic year, it must be that 
which began in July, 508 B.C. This is the fourth official year after 
the expulsion of the Pisistratidae, which occurred (as appears from 
ch. 19) in the official year 511-10 b. c, seemingly in the early part of 
5 10 B. c. 

The note of time in this passage shows that the constitution of 
Cleisthenes was not drawn up until after the expulsion of Cleomenes 
and Isagoras. This would have been probable a priori, as there was 
not time to have introduced such extensive constitutional changes 
before the Spartan invasion ; but the order in which the occurrences 
are mentioned by Herodotus has misled some historians into supposing 
the contrary. 

TO fir] (pvKoKptvelv : the meaning of this phrase apparently is that 
since the <j>v\ai after the reforms of Cleisthenes no longer bore any 
relation to the yhri, it was useless to enter on an examination of the 
tribes for the purpose of reviewing the lists of the yevtj. Cleisthenes 
wished to break up the old tribal division for political purposes, so as 
to do away with all the old aristocratic traditions and associations 
which no doubt stood in the way of the lower classes when they 
wished to take part in public life. Therefore, while retaining the 
name (j)v\al, he made his new tribes of a number to which the 
number of the old tribes bore no integral proportion, so that it was 
not possible to form the new ones out of any of the existing sub- 
divisions of the old. A number of persons were admitted to the new 
tribes who had not been members of the old, and these were not 
necessarily entered on the rolls of any of the yfvr). Formerly, on any 
review of the citizen-roll, it was no doubt usual to go through it tribe 
by tribe, following all the subdivisions of the old patriarchal system. 
Now the tribe-roll had no relation to that of the yhri, and consequently 
those persons who wished to examine the latter would have nothing to 
do with distinctions of tribes. The phrase seems, from the way in 


Kara ras irpovirap^ovacLs rpiTTvs' rjaav yap eK 8 
(})vXaiv ScoScKa rpiTTves, wot' ov [<TVu]e7rnrT€u dua- 
fila-y^a-Oai to ttXtjOos. Sieveiixe 8e /cat t^u yapav 
Kara 8r]p.ovs TpiaKovra fieprj, 8eKa p.h rmu irepl to 
da-TV, 5e/ca 5e Trj? TrapaXias, ScKa Se Trjs p-eaoyeiov, 
Kai TavTas iirovop^daas TpiTTvs iKXrjpaxrev Tpeis els 
T-qv (pvXrju cKaa-Triv, OTrcas eKaa-Tr} p-eTexy TrdvTcov 
Twv TOTTCOV /cat Br^p^oTas eTroirjcrev dXXrjXoov tow 
oiKOVVTas eV eKda-Tm Totv 8-qpxav, tva p.rj Trarpodev 
irpoaayopevovTes i^eXeyxcocrtu tow veoiroXiTas, 

which Aristotle introduces it, to have become a proverbial one, 
perhaps for making useless distinctions; and this, rather than any 
stricter sense, may be its meaning in Thuc. VI. 18, where it is to be 
preferred to the otherwise unknown ipiXoKpivtiv. 

Kara ras trpovirap^ovaas : at first written Trpbs t. jr., but corrected. 

avvemiTTev : written a-vveiTfnrTev in the MS., if this is the right 
restoration of the word, part of which is lost. 

Sieveifie 8c Koi ttjv ^mpav Kara Sij/iou TpiaKovra p^epr] : this passage 
does nothing to clear up the difficulty as to the number of the demes 
which arises from the words of Herodotus (V. 69). It merely explains 
how the local sub-division of the tribes was managed so as to secure 
that the territories of each should be scattered over the whole of Attica. 
The fact that the tribes were so sub-divided has of course been well- 
known, not, however, from any direct statement by Herodotus or other 
ancient author, but from the fact that the various demes of the 
several tribes are found in different parts of the country. It appears 
from the present passage that each tribe had three sub-divisions, one 
in each of the three districts into which Attica had formerly been 
divided. We are not told how many demes there were in each trittys ; 
but if the text of Herodotus is correct in saying that there were ten in 
each tribe, it follows that they must have been unevenly distributed 
among the trittyes ; and this must anyhow have been the case as the 
number of the demes gradually increased up to the total of 174, 
to which we know it had attained in the third century B. C. (Polemo a/. 
Strabo, IX. l, p. 396). The demes composing each trittys appear to 
have been contiguous. 

i^e\iyX<ii<nv tovs vcoTroXiVar : Cleisthenes introduced a large number 
of new citizens by the enfranchisement of emancipated slaves and 
resident aliens, and he made their reception into the community easier 
by altering the official mode of designation. If described by their 

^6 API2T0TEA0T2 

aXXa Twv hr][xxav avayopevcocnv odev kcu KaX[o{;]- 
aiv 'AdrjvaioL (r(j)ds avTOVS rmv Srjficou. /care'crTiycre 
fie /cat Srjixdpxovs ttjv avrrjv eypvTas eTrifxeXeiau 
Tols irporepov vavKpapoLS' koX yap tovs Stj/jlovs 
avTL Toov vavKpapiav iwoirjcrev. Trpocrrjyopevae 8e 
Tap S'qp.cov TOVS p.ev diro Ta>v Ir^oTncain, tovs de diro 
Twv KTicravToaV ov yap arravTes VTrfjp^ou eTi toIs 
TOTTOis. TO, 8e yevr] Ka\ Tas ^paTpias /cat ray 
hpcoavvas elaaev ^X'^i-v CKacrTOVs KaTa Ta iraTpia. 

father's name alone, the new citizens who, so to speak, ' had no father,' 
would be easily distinguished from the older citizens, who were proud 
of their family pedigrees ; but by adding the name of the deme as 
part of the necessary description a novelty was introduced into the 
designation of all alike, and the fact of a man having a deme would 
be sufficient proof of his being a citizen, which in the case of those 
newly admitted to the franchise would not be obvious from the 
unfamiliar and sometimes foreign name of his father. 

KaTiaTTjore Se Km drj/iapxpys . . . inoitjirfv : quoted by Harpocration 
(s. V, vavKpaptKoj as from 'ApurTOTeXijs if 'ABrjvalaiv iioKiTfiq, and he 
refers to the same passage s.v. Srj/iapxos (Rose, Frag. 359). The 
second Beriin fragment (Blass, Hermes XV, Diels, Berl. Acad. 1885) 
also begins at the same place, with the exception of the single word 
'Adr}vaioi standing in the preceding line ; and it was through the 
identity of the remains of the first sentence with the quotation in 
Harpocration that Bergk {Rhein. Mus. 1881, p. 91) first proved the 
Berlin fragments to belong to Aristotle's work. The second fragment 
includes twenty-five lines, but only twelve or fourteen letters in each 
are visible. The first word legible is ^ hArpioXoi, as mentioned above : the 
last which can be identified are [^ujX^t inaaTrjs. This passage is also 
quoted by a scholiast on Aristophanes (Clouds, 37), who may, however, 
have derived it from Harpocration (Rose, ed. 1886, Frag. 397). 

eniptXeiav : MS. eTrifieXtav. 

ov yap oTrai'Tes imrfp^ov 'in Tois Tdn-ois : it is difficult to extract a 
satisfactory sense from the words as they stand. The meaning seems 
to be either that some of the localities now erected into demes had no 
founders from whom they could be called, or that they had no names 
of their own. In the one case it is an explanation of the practice of 
naming a deme from its local appellation when it had no founder of 
any note to call it by, in the other of that of naming it from its founder 
when it had no name already of its own. In either case it would seem 
that anaa-iv is the right reading rather than anavrts. 


raiy 8e (j)vXaLS eiroiT](r€v lirtavvfj^ias^ Ik twv irpoKpi- 
QivTOiv CKaTou ap^-qyermv ovs aueiXev r} YlvOia SeKa. 
22. TovTcov 8e yevofjievmv SrjfioTiKcoTepa ttoXIv rrjs 
2]oAft)i'os' iyevcTO rj troXiTeia' koL yap a-vvefirj roiif 
fieu SoAcovoy vofiovs acpaviaaL rrjv TvpapviSa Sia to 
fXT] xprja-dai, tovs S" aXXovs OelvaL tov KXeLaOeurjv 
a-Toxa^o/xevou tov irX-qOovs, eV ols iriOr} /cat 6 Trep\ 
TOV oa-TpaKta-fJLov v6p.os. irpatTov p.ev odv eTei 
*7r€fjL7rTcp* fiera TavTTjv ttjv KaTacrTaa-Lv e'^' 'E/o/aou- 
KpeovTOS apxovTOS tjj ^ovXy tois irevTaKoaiots tov 
opKov €7roLr](rav bu €Tt kol vvv ofxi/vovcrtv eireiTa 
Tovs (TTpaTTjyovs ypovvTO KUTo. ^vXds, i^ eKacTTTjs 

ms aveiKfv rj HvBia : the share which the Delphic oracle had in 
choosing the names of the ten Cleisthenean tribes is mentioned in 
the Etym. Mag. p. 369; 16, raCra fie to. btKa ovofiara cmopois 6 IIvBios 
eTXero, and Lex. Demosth. Patm. (p. 15, ed. Sakk.), tovtovs yap i^ 
ovofiaraiv fKarov 6 6f6s c^fXe^aro (Rose, Frag. 429, and ed. 1886, 
Frag. 469). 

22. e0' 'EpfiovKpeovTos apxovTos : the dates here given absolutely refuse 
to harmonise. The reforms of Cleisthenes have been above assigned 
to the archonship of Isagoras in 508 B. C. The year denoted by erei 
TTtfinTio /icTo ravTrjv rrjv KaraiTTaiTLv would therefore naturally be 504 B. C. 
But in the first place that year is already appropriated by the name 
of Acestorides, and, secondly, in the next sentence it is said that the 
battle of Marathon occurred in the twelfth year afterwards. The date 
of Marathon being unquestionably 490 B.C., this places the archonship 
of Hermoucreon in 501 B. C, for which year no name occurs in the 
extant lists. We must therefore suppose either that the reforms of 
Cleisthenes extended over three years, which is improbable, or that 
Aristotle has omitted some necessary note of time, or that Trip-im^ is a 
mistake for oySdo) (e' for rj) ; the latter solution is perhaps the most 

Toil oTpaTijyovs : it has generally been stated (e.g. by Grote) that the 
office of a-Tparrjyos was created by Cleisthenes, but it has already been 
seen iri ch. 4 that it was at least as old ae the time of Draco. Cleis- 
thenes did not even, as it now appears, increase their number to ten 
nor make them the chief ofificers of the state. Under his constitution 
the archons, who were elected directly by the assembly (f/f below, note 
on (Kvafievaav k.t.\.), were still the chief magistrates of the state ; and 


(jyvXrjs eva, rrjs Se airacrrjs (rTparias i^yeficou rju 6 
TToXifiap^os . erei 8e fiera ravra SvoSeKarco vlkt]- 
cravTes Trjv iu M.apa6avi M-c-XV^ ^'""^ ^aiviinrov 
apxpvTOS, KaraXuKOVTes err} 8vo jxera Trjv VLK-qv, 
OappovvTos r]8ri tov SrjfMov, Tore wparou i)(pi](ravTO 
rS vojjiw T^ Trepl tov oaTpaKKr/Mov, os ireOt] 8i.a ttju 
VTTO'^tav tS)v €v Tois Svvafiea-iv, on Yli(ri(rTpaTOS 
8r)iJiaycoyos Kol crrpaT'qyos a>v Tvpavvos Karearr]' 
Koi TrpS>Tos axTTpaKLcrOr] rav eKelvov avyyevav 

the ten strategi were only elected at the date here indicated as sub- 
ordinates to the polemarch. 

on UicrlcTTpaTos k.t.Ii.. : MS. oi-e, which makes nonsense of the passage. 
It has just been said that the law of ostracism was passed by Cleis- 
thenes. Cf. also the quotation from Harpocration below, in which this 
sentence is repeated with slight variation. The law was passed in 
consequence of the lesson taught by the career of Pisistratus, and was 
aimed especially at the supporters of his house who still remained in 
Athens. It was not put into force, however, owing (according to 
Aristotle) to the usual leniency of the democracy (and in respect of this 
testimony itj,may be remembered that Aristotle is not by any means 
an extreme admirer of democracy) ; but when the Persian invasion and 
tjie attempt to betray Athens immediately after the battle of Marathon 
showed that there was still much danger to be expected from the 
partisans of Hippias, it was natural that strong measures should be 
adopted and the leading adherents of the tyranny expelled. The only 
wonder is that two years were allowed to elapse after Marathon before 
the first ostracism ; but probably in the first satisfaction with the 
victory it was thought that nothing further would be attempted against 
Greece, and it was only when it was known that Darius was making 
preparations for another and more formidable invasion, that precautions 
were taken by ostracising Hipparchus and other members of the same 

irpStTos i)iTTpaKi(T0t] . . . 'iTTiTapxos : cf. Harpocration, s. v. "linrapxos, 
aWos Se i<TTiv "imap^os 6 Xdppov, &s ^r)iTi AvKovpyos fv Tc5 koto. Aeaxpd- 
Tovs' irepl 8f TOUTou 'Ai/Sponoiv in rfj /3' (}>jj<tIv oti tTvyyevrjS pev fjv Hckikt- 
rpdrov tov rvpdvvov Ka\ irparos e^atTTpaKiaBri tov wep\ tov otTTpaKiirpov i/o^ov 
TOT€ Trp&Tov TfBevTos Sio TTjV VTToyjriav tS)v Trepl Ilfio'io'TpaToi/, oti Siyjiaymyos 
Ac Kol aTpaTrjyos fTvpamtjo-ev, As a matter of fact the Hipparchus 
mentioned by Lycurgus {Contr. Leocr. p. 164) is not the son of Charmus, 
but of Timarchus. The words on . . . eTvpawrjo-ev are so nearly identical 
with those of Aristotle that the one author must have drawn from the 


Iwirap^os Xdp/x.ov KoXvrrevs, 8t' ou kol fidXio-ra 
Tov uofxov edrjKeu 6 KXeia-devrjs, i^eXdaai fiovXo- 
fj.€vos avTov. ol yap 'Adrjvalot rovs twv Tvpduvoov 
0tAouy, oaoi fxr] (rvve^rj/xapTavov eV raiy Tapa-)(ah, 
elcov OLKelv Tiqv ttoXlv, ^pafxevoL rfj eladvia tov Stq/jlov 
TrpaorrjTL' a>v rjyefiav /cat TrpoaTaTrjs rfv "linrapxos. 
€v6vs 8e T(S va-Tepcp erei cVi TeXeaivov dpxovTos 
€Kvap,€vaav tovs kvvia ap^ovTas Kara (pvXd? Ik twv 

other. The date of Androtion is doubtful, but it appears more probable 
that he lived somewhat later than Aristotle, quite at the close of the fourth 
century. In that case, and supposing the sentence to be part of the 
quotation from Androtion and not an explanatory addition by Harpo- 
cration, it would show that Aristotle's work was publicly known in the 
generation immediately succeeding his own. There are, however, so 
many elements of doubt about the matter that it is unsafe to draw any 
positive conclusion. 

KoXvTTcus : Plutarch (Afic. 11), who also mentions Hipparchus as 
the first victim of ostracism, describes him as XoKapyeCs. 

fjyfiiaiv : the reverse of the second Berlin fragment (cf. Hermes XV. 
376) begins here. It consists of parts of twenty-five lines, ending with 
the word Tpir/peU • but the remains are too small for any information 
of value to be extracted from them. 

eVi TeXeo-tVou apxovTos : this will be in 487 B. C, one of the three years 
after 496 B. C. (the others being 486 and 481 B. c.) for which no archon's 
name appears in our lists. 

eKva/ieva-av Toiis ivvia apxovTas k.tX. : this passage must be compared 
with the account of the system of election introduced by Solon (ch. 8, 
K\r]pa)Tas k.t.\.). It appears that in this year (487 B. c.) the Athenians 
reverted, with some modification, to the system which Solon had 
established, and which had been abrogated by the establishment of the 
tyranny ; that is, they appointed the archons by lot from a number of 
candidates who had been selected by the tribes in free election. The 
statement which follows, ol Se nporepoi Trdvres Tjaav aiperot, must apply 
to the period between the expulsion of the tyrants and the time now 
being spoken of, and it shows that Cleisthenes did not apply the use of 
the lot to the election of archons, but had them freely elected, pre- 
sumably by the ecclesia. We therefore have the following stages in 
the history of the method of election to this office i (l) prior to Draco, 
the archons were nominated by the Areopagus ; (2) under the Dra- 
conian constitution they were elected by the ecclesia ; (3) under the 
Solonian constitution, so far as it was not disturbed by internal troubles 


irpoKpLdevTODV VTTO rav Srjfiorap irevTaKoa'uav Tols 
fi€Ta TTjv Tvpavviba irpcaTov, (oi 5e irporepot Travres 
■qaav aipeTot)' Koi axTTpaKia-dr) Meya/cA^y 'Itttto- 

and revolutions, they were chosen by lot from forty candidates selected 
by the four tribes ; (4) under the constitution of Cleisthenes they were 
directly elected by the people in the ecclesia ; (5) after 487 B. c. they 
were appointed by lot from 100 (or 500, see below) candidates selected 
by the ten tribes ; (6) at some later period (see ch. 8) the process of 
the lot was adopted also in the preliminary selection by the tribes. 

One point remains to be settled, namely the number of candidates 
selected by the tribes under the arrangement of 487 B. C. It is here 
given as 500, i. e. fifty from each tribe ; but on the other hand it is 
distinctly stated in ch. 8 that each tribe chose ten candidates, so that 
the total would be 100. It is true that Aristotle is there speaking of the 
practice in his own time, while here he is describing that of the fifth 
century ; but it is not in the least likely that the number of persons 
nominated by each tribe was reduced. The tendency is more likely to 
have been the other way. It is more probable that for irevTaKoaiav {((>') 
we should read tKarov (p), the confusion between the two numerals 
being very easy, and perhaps to be paralleled from Thuc. II. 7. 

It follows from the present passage that the polemarch Callimachus 
at Marathon was elected and not chosen by lot. This is the view which 
has always been preferable on grounds of common sense, and it is only 
the authority of Herodotus which has made it doubtful.' As is stated 
by Aristotle just above, the polemarch was still the commander-in- 
chief, and the strategi were, technically at any rate, his subordinates. 
In this capacity he gave his vote last, just as is the practice in a 
modern council of war. 

VTTO Twv SrifioTav : this, if literally interpreted, is in contradiction with 
the passage in ch. 62, which says ai 8e KXi;po>rai ipx"-' Trporepov /liv^aav 
ai p,£v pfT ivvea ap)(OVTa>v ck t^s (fivKrjs oXrjS xXijpov^EKai, al 8' ev 0ri<reUf 
KKrjpoipevai Sit)povvro els roiis Sripovs. This implies that the preliminary 
selection of the candidates for the archonship was made by. the whole 
tribe, not by the separate demes. It is true that Sij/idroi may simply 
stand for the members of the tribe, all of whom were necessarily 
members of a deme ; but it would be rather a misleading use in this 
connection. It may be that Aristotle has made a mistake, and that the 
TTfVTaKotriav discussed above is part of the same mistake ; for the demes 
did actually elect the 500 members of the /3ovX^, as appears from the 
continuation of the passage in ch. 62 just quoted. The fact which 
remains certain is that the use of the lot was, in some manner or 
another, introduced at this date for the election of the archons. 

MeycucKris 'liriroKpaTovs : this would be the grandson of the Megacles 
who was the opponent of Pisistratus, and the nephew of Cleisthenes. 


Kparovs 'AXanreK^dev. eVt fMev oSv err} y tovs twv 
Tvpavvcav ([)iXov9 ma-TpaKi^ov, mv ^apiv 6 vopos 
€Te0T], p,€Ta 5e ravra rm TerapTca eret koL t(ov 
aXXmv el tls SoKotrj puei^cov ehai peOicrTavTO' kcu 
irpcoTOS axTTpaKia-Or) tS>v airmOev ttJs Tvpavvibos 
AavOiinros 6 ^ApL(f)povos. tru 8e rpiTco fxera ravTa 
NtKoSrjpov apxovTos, ®y i(f)aurj to, fieraXXa to, ev 

It is consequently surprising to find him among the persons ostracised 
as a friend of the tyrants. The banishment of a Megacles, who was the 
maternal grandfather of Alcibiades, is mentioned by Lysias {Contr. Ale. 
I. 39), but it has been supposed that this was the son of Cleisthenes, 
who bore the same name. 

SavSmnos 6 'Api<f>povos : this ostracism of Xanthippus is not elsewhere 
mentioned, except in the extract from HeracUdes quoted above, in the 
note on ch. i8, a0' oS k.t.X. Like Aristides he must have returned at 
the time of the second Persian war, as he was archon in 479 B.C. and 
commanded the Athenians at Mycale and at the siege of Sestos. 

NiKoS^^ou apxovTos : the dates are somewhat confusing here. The 
notes of time given for the period between the Persian wars are these. 
After Marathon KaToKtnovTes bio t-n] , . , T(f varepa crct comes the 
archonship of Telesines (487 B. c.) ; these three years are summarised 
in the phrase eVi piv ouv Iti; y, and then t^ rerdpTa erei (486 B.C.) is the 
ostracism of Xanthippus ; erei Se rpira pera ravra (484 B.C.) is the 
archonship of Nicodemus ; ev ToiiToir rois xP""'"'^ Aristides was ostra- 
cised, and Tfrdpra erei he and all the other political exiles were recalled, 
in the archonship of Hypsichides, 81a rrjv Sep^ov arpanav, i.e. in 481 B.C. 
This seems plain and consistent enough ; but there is the difficulty that 
the archonship of Nicodemus is placed by Clinton and others in 483 B. c, 
on the authority of Dionysius. It may be that the three archons 
Philocrates, Leostratu^, and Nicodemus should be placed in the years 
486-484 B. C, instead of 485-483 B. C. The Parian marble does indeed 
place Philocrates in 486 B.C. ; but as that record assigns Marathon 
and Salamis respectively to 491 B.C. and 481 B.C., it is clear that it 
habitually places the archons a year too high, so that its authority 
cannot be quoted in support of the present suggestion. On the other 
hand it is possible that Aristotle was mistaken in the year of Nico- 
demus ; for it is noticeable that Plutarch, who, like Aristotle, records 
that Aristides was recalled in view of the march of Xerxes upon Greece, 
says that he returned in the third year after his banishment {Arist. 8). 
If, then, Aristotle knew that the ostracism took place in the archonship 
of Nicodemus, but believed that archonship to fall in 484 B.C., this 


^apcopela kol Trepieyei/ero rfj iroXei raXavra eKarov 
e/c tS)v epycov, avfi^ovXevovTcop Ttvmv ra Srjfi^ 
Siaveifiaa-dai to apyvpiov, Q€p,t(rTOKXrjs eKcoXvaeu, 

discrepancy is removed, and it is unnecessary to make any alteration in 
the received list of archons. 

As regards the exact name of the archon in question, it must be 
noted that the MS. reads NtAco/i^Souj, but on the other hand Dionysius 
calls him Nicodemus, and this reading is confirmed by the Berlin 
fragment of Aristotle. The testimony of Aristotle being thus doubtful 
the authority of Dionysius may turn the scale ; more particularly since 
Nicomedes is not a name that would have been likely to be given to an 
Athenian bom before the time of the Ionian revolt at earliest, while 
Nicodemus would be a name suitable in an aristocratic family at any 
time in the sixth century. Under these circumstances it does not 
appear that any good purpose would be served by leaving the name 
NiKofiriSovs in the text here, and NticoS^fiou has accordingly been 

TO fieraWa ra iv Mapmvfia: in Herodotus (VII. 144) and Plutarch 
- {TAem. 4) the mines are described as those of Laurium. Demosthenes 
{Contr. Pantaen., p. 967) refers to a Maroneia at which there were 
works {epya) which seem to have been mines ; and Harpocration 
(s. V. Mapavela) states that this place was in Attica, and was distinct 
from the Maroneia in Thrace mentioned by the same orator {Contr. 
PofycL, p. 1213). There need therefore be no doubt that Maroneia in 
Attica was in the neighbourhood of Laurium, and that the mines 
referred to by Aristotle are the same as those mentioned by Herodotus 
and Plutarch. 

ToXavTa iKarov k.tX. : this Story is repeated by Polyaenus (Strateg. 
I. 30), who evidently took it from Aristotle. The details are different 
from, but not inconsistent with, those given by Herodotus. It is 
evident that Grote was right in holding, as against Boeckh, that it was 
not intended to distribute among the populace the whole sum derived 
from the mines. Herodotus states that the proposed distribution was 
to be at the rate of 10 drachmas a head, which would amount, according 
to Boeckh's calculation, to 33J talents in all. 

GfjiHo-roicXijs : this passage does not solve the disputed question as to 
the archonship of Themistocles. It is clear, however, that he was not 
archon at the time of the proposal to distribute the funds available 
from the silver mines, since that occurred in the archonship of 
Nicodemus, but that his guidance of the policy of his country in the 
direction of ship-building was effected in his capacity as a popular 
leader in the ecclesia. Athenian policy was not directed by the archon 
or by any magistrate as such, but by the ecclesia, and therefore 


ov Xeycov on ')(^pr](r€TaL toIs XRVt^'^^^'^^ dXXa Saveia-ai 
KcXevcov Toiy irXova-LcoTaTOis 'Adrjvaicov eKarov eKo.- 
(TTCO ToXavTOU, cIt iav fiev apeaKji to dvaXcofia rrjs 

ultimately by the leaders of the ecclesia. On the other hand 
Thucydides expressly says that Themistocles was in office at the time 
that he began the fortification of the Piraeus (I. 93, vttjjpkto 8' airoii 

JTpoTcpop in\ Trjs cKiivov apxrjs ^s kot cnavTov 'ASrjvaiois Vpi^)' This 

does not necessarily mean that he was archon eponymus, but the use 
of eVi with the genitive, the almost invariable method of indicating the 
year, favours the belief that he was. It is moreover certain that he 
was archon (though not necessarily archon eponymus) at some 
period in his career, from the fact that he appears later as a member 
of the Areopagus (ch. 25). It is therefore not improbable that he was 
archon eponymus at the time indicated by Thucydides. In that case 
it may be taken as certain that his year of office falls in 482 B.C., not 
in 481 B.C. (as Clinton puts it), both because we have another archon's 
name mentioned below for whom the latter year is required, and 
because it accords better with probability, since it seems likely that 
the work of fortifying the Piraeus was undertaken in connection with 
the building of the triremes, which was commenced^in 483 B. C. At the 
same time the fact of his holding that office is only to a very limited 
extent a sign of appointment by the people to carry out his naval 
policy, since the final process of election to the archonship was at this 
time conducted by lot ; and the words of Thucydides are consistent 
with his having held any magistracy, such, for instance, as that of 
(TTparriyos, on whom the execution of such operations might naturally fall. 
It may be added that the supposed archonship of Themistocles in 
493 B. C. appears very problematical. It is not in the least likely that 
the same person would wish to be archon twice, when it brought no 
substantial advantages except a seat in the Areopagus. Nor is it likely 
that the naval pohcy of Themistocles, indicated by the fortification of 
the Piraeus, began so far back as that date. It appears more natural 
to connect it closely with the building of the fleet in 483 B. c. Further, 
it is probable that the archons had to be not less than thirty years old, as 
•was certainly the case in the time of Draco (ch. 4). If Themistocles 
was archon in 493 B.C. he must have been born not later than 523 B.C., 
in which case he would have been at least thirty-three at the time of 
Marathon, and could hardly be called veor, as he is by Plutarch (TAem. 
3). Moreover Plutarch tells us that he was sixty-five at his death, which 
would therefore on this theory fall not later than 45 8 B. c. But, as appears 
from ch. 25 below (see note there), his flight to Persia cannot have 
occurred before 460 B.C., and it is probable that he lived there some 
years before his death. These considerations cumulatively make an 
archonship in 493 E. C. improbable. It rests on the authority, which 


TToAeeoy elvai rrjv 8airavr]v, ei 5e firj, irapaKO- 
fiicracrdat ra -xprifiaTa irapa rmv SaveLcrajxevcov . 
Xa^cov 8' eVt tovtois iva^y^-qy-qcraTO Tpiqp€i9 
eKUTOv, eKaarov vavirr]yovp.evov twv eKarov p,iau, 
aly evavp.a)(r]orav ev ^aXaplui Trpof tow ^ap^apovs. 
mcTTpaKLaOr] S" iv tovtois toIs Kaipols 'ApLCTeiSrjs o 
KvcTLpaypv. TeTapTa 8' eTet aire8e^avTO iravTas 
Tovs d>aTpaKL(rp.ivovs, ap^ovTOS 'Y'\^Ly[8ov, 8ia ttjv 
Sep^ov (TTpaTidv Koi to Xolttou wpicrav toIs 
oaTpaKi^opLivois ivTos TepaicrTOv kol ^KvXXaiov 
KaTOiK€Lv rj oLTip-ovs tivui Kaddira^. 

is in itself good, of Dionysius (Ant. Rom. VI. 34), but there is nothing 
to prove that he is speaking of the same Themistocles. The father s 
name is not mentioned, and it may be another person of the same 
name, or else Dionysius has on this occasion made a mistake. 

ctpxovTos 'YyjfixiSov : the reading of the name is somewhat doubtful ; 
after \jf there appears to be an erasure of two or three letters, over 
which an 1 has been written as a correction. The name Hypsichides 
is otherwise unknown. It is clear from the words which follow that 
the year is 481 B. C. Plutarch (Arist. 8) says that Aristides and the 
other exiles were recalled while Xerxes was on his march through 
Thessaly and Boeotia. This would be in the spring of 480 B. C, and 
therefore in the year of the archon who entered office in July of 481 B.C. ; 
Calliades, in whose archonship Salamis was fought, succeeded to the 
post in July of 480 B. c. 

From this passage it appears that Herodotus must have been wrong 
if he intended to represent Aristides as still under sentence of ostracism 
at the time of the battle of Salamis. The time, however, between his 
recall and the battle was so short that the mistake, if it be one, is 
natural ; but it is not certain that the participle e^aa-TpaKia-fieuos means 
more than that he had been ostracised, without necessarily implying 
that he still was so. 

f vTos VfpauTTuv Kn\ ^KvWaitv : presumably these places, which stand 
at the extreme south of Euboea and east of Argolis respectively, mark 
the eastern and western limits within which the ostracised person was 
free to live, and if so he was confined within very narrow boundaries. 
The object of the regulation no doubt was to obviate the danger of a 
banished citizen entering into communication with Persia. Plutarch 
says that the principal reason for the recall of the exiles before the 


23. Tore fiev ovv fiexpi- tovtov TrpoijXdev -q ttoXis 
afia Ty SrjfxoKpaTia Kara fiiKpov av^avo/jievT]' fieTO, 
8e ra M.r)8iKa Trakiv 'La^vaev r} iv 'Apeico irayco 
fiovXrj KCLL 8i(pK€i TTfv TToXiv, ovSevl 86yfJLaTi Xa^ovaa 
TTjv riy\epio\viav dXXa 8ia to yevea-dat rrjs irepl 
^aXaplva vavfxa^ias airta. twv yap (TTpaT-qyav 
i^aTropr/ardvTcov toIs Trpdyfjuao-t kcu Krjpv^dvTaii> 
(rcoQeiv eKacrrov eavTov, iropiaacra Bpay^^jxds eKdaTca 
OKTco SteBcoKe kol ivefiifiaaev ds rds vavs. dtd 
TavTTjv 8rj TTJV alrlav 7rape-)(c6povv avrfj rra d^ia>p.aTi, 
Kol iiroXLTevd-qa-av 'Adrjvaioi /caAmy kol Kara tov- 
Tovs Tovs Kaipovs. (Twe^Tj yap avrois Kara tou 
Xpovov TOVTOV Ta re eiy tou woXep^ov daKrja-at kol 

second Persian invasion was the fear that Aristides might attach 
himself to Xerxes and carry with him a considerable party in Athens. 
As he proceeds to say, the Athenians were completely mistaken in 
their estimate of the man in entertaining this fear, but it is very likely 
that the fear was felt, and the present passage of Aristotle confirms 
it. The regulation cannot, however, have been strictly observed 
subsequently ; for instance, we find the ostracised Themistocles living 
in Argos (Thuc. I. 135) and the ostracised Hyperbolas in Samos 
(Thuc. VIII. 73). 

23. Sia TO yeveaBai k.tX. : Plutarch tells this story (Themist. lo), quoting 
Aristotle as his authority, though he adds that Cleidemus reported the 
money in question to have been produced by a device of Themistocles 
(Rose, Frag. 360). Rose also gives (as Frag. 361) a quotation from 
Aelian, who refers to Aristotle for a story about a dog belonging to 
Xanthippus which swam with the escaping Athenians to Salamis. 
Plutarch gives the same story, but if the authority is Aristotle it must 
be in some other of his works, probably one on natural history. 

^apex^povv air^ : MS. avrrjv, but there is no justification for an 
accusative after irape^apovv in this sense. 

KOI Kara tovtovs tovs Kaipois : it may be questioned whether kol is not 
due merely to a copyist's mistake, as there is no apparent reason for 
the emphasis which it gives to the clause. 

KOTci Tbv xpovov TOVTOV ', TTfpi. sBems to have been written above kotu 
as a correction, but as this is not certain it appears better to retain 
Kara in the text. 

66 API2T0TEA0T2 

irapa rots "^XXrja-LV evSoKiixTJaai, /cat ttjv rrjS OaXar- 
rrjs rjyefiovlav Xa^elv olkoutcov t5>v AaKeBaijxoviaiv. 
Tjaav 5e irpocrTaTaL tov Stj/jLOu Kara tovtovs tovs 
Kaipovs 'ApL(rTeL8r)s 6 Avaifidxov kcu QefiKTTOKXrjs 
6 Neo/cXeouy, 6 fiev to, TroXefiia acrKav, o 8e ra 
TToXiTiKa 8eLU09 eivai {SoKwvy koL SiKaiocrvur) tcov 
Kaff kavTov 8ia(pepeiv' 8io Koi e^patvro tco jxev 
a-TpaTrjyS, too 8e crvjJL^ovXcp. ttju fieu odu tcov 
Tei^mu avoLKo86iir](rLv Koivy 8icoKr](rav, Kanrep 8m- 
(l)€p6fievoL TTpos aXXrjXovs' iirl 5e ttjv dirocTTaa-iv 

TTfJU TmV 'IcOVQiV KOL TTjV tS)V KaK€8aLflOV lcov avfi- 

p^a^iav ' Api(rTei8ris rju 6 TTpoTpi^^as, Trjprjcraf Toiif 
KaKavas 8iafi€^X'qfJievovs 8La Tlavcraviav. 8io Koi 
Toi/s (j)6povs ovTos rju Ta^as rats iroXeaiv tovs 
irpwTovs €T€L TpiTcp p.eTa TTJU ev ^aXafuvL i/av/xa^Lau 
iiri Tip,ocr0evov oip\ovTos, kcu tovs hpKovs wp-oaev 
[Col. lo.] Tols "laxTL moTTe tov avTov €-)(9pov eivuL kcu (plXov, 
icpi" ols Koi TOVS fjLv8povs iv r^ ireXayei, KaOeiaav. 

noKiTiKo. : MS. woKefuKa, evidently a clerical blunder due to iroXc/xia 
which precedes. 

SokSiv : not in the MS., but clearly required by the sense. 

avoiKob6ixri(nv : MS. avioiKoSofirjiriv. 

fifTci : at first written Sia, but corrected. 

em Ttfioa-devov apxovros : the list of archohs, derived from Dionysius 
and elsewhere, is complete from 480 to 321 b. C, and the names 
mentioned by Aristotle only confirm it. The mention of this date 
(478 B. C.) fixes the organisation of the Confederacy of Delos two years 
higher than that usually assigned. Thucydides (I. 94-96) gives no 
date, but his narrative is quite in accordance with that named by 

Toiis opKovs &iw<7iv Tois "loxri : this is not the same treaty as that 
mentioned by Herodotus (IX. 106), the latter having taken place in 
479 B.C., immediately after Mycale, when Xanthippus, and not 
Aristides, was in command of the Athenian forces. Aristides renewed 
the treaty at the request of the lonians at the time of which Thucydides 


24- Mera 5e ravra 6appov(n)9 rjSrj Trjf iroXeois 
Kai^pr^fxaroDV iroWav rjOpoia/xevcov, avve^ovXevev 
avTiXap-fiavecrdaL rrjs rj-yefMovia? kol Kara^avras €K 
t5>v aypav OLKelv iv rw aaret' Tpo(j)^v yap eaeadaL 
iracri, rots fieu crTpaTevofMevoLs, toIs 8e (j)povpovac, 
Tols Se ra KOLva irpaTTovcri, ei6' ovtco KaTaa-)(r](T€iv 
TTjv rjyefiovMv. ireiadevTes 5e ravra Ka\ Xafiovres 
rrjv apxv^ tols re (rvfifia^oLS Sea-TrorLKCorepcos 
i^^pcouro ttXtjv Xicoi' /cat AeajSlcov Ka), ^ap,icov rov- 
rouy 8e (f)vXaKas el^ou rrjs ap\rjs, iaures ras re 
TToXireias Trap avrols kou ap\eLv mv erv^ov ap^ovres . 
Karea-rrjcrav 8e Kal rols iroXXols evrropiav rpo(f)rJ9, 
axrirep ' Api(rrei8r]s elarjyrja-aro. avvefiaivev yap 
airo rS>v (j)6pcov Kal rmv reXwv Kal rav avppa^oav 
irXeiovs rj 8Lap.vpL0vs av8pas rpe(j)e(Tdai. 8iKacrral 

speaks (I. 95) (t^oiTavres upos tovs 'Adifvaiovs rj^iovv avrovs riye/iovas (rtj)S>v 
yeveadai Kara to ^vyyevis). 

24. ridpourixhav : wrongly corrected to ddpoia-fiivav in the MS. 

irwe^ovXevev k.tX. : this counsel to the people to come in from the 
country, in order to secure the control, first of Athens, and thereby of 
the allies of Athens, is what one would rather have expected to come 
from Themistocles. At the same time Aristides is called npoa-TdTtjs roii 
Sfjpov just above, and he was never the leader of the aristocratical 
party. Moreover his conduct in reference to the Confederacy of Delos 
shows that the imperial idea was strong in him, and, while he would 
probably not have been a party to any unjust treatment of the allies, he 
no doubt wished to see Athens in possession of the riyep.ovia of Greece 
by sea, though his policy of friendship with Sparta would have 
prevented any attempt to interfere with the supremacy of the latter by 
land. The multipKcation of paid offices in the state is a first stage in 
that process of paying the democracy of Athens which was carried to 
•its full extent under Pericles, and which really made the poorer classes 
in the community, the democracy in the narrower sense of the term, 
the dominant power in the state. 

irXeiovs T Sia-pvpiovs : the numbers given (allowing 4000 men for the 
twenty guard-ships, at the usual rate of 200 men to each ship) amount 
in all to 19,750 persons, exclusive of the orphans and other persons 

F 3 


fji€v yap y^(Toijv i^uKLcrx^^ioi, ro^orai S" i^UKoa-LOL 
l(al ■)(^l\loi, Kcti wpos tovtois iTTTrety ^/Atoi koL 8ia- 
KoatoL, ^ovXt] Se TrevraKoa-Loi, koL (f)povpdl veco- 
picov irevTaKocTLOi, Koi irpos tovtols iv ry iroXei 
(ppovpail u, ap^ai 5' evSr]p,oi fiev eiy eTTTaKociovs 
QLvBpas, virepopioL 8' els iiTTaKocriovs' irpos 8e tov- 
tois eVei (TvveaTrjcravTO tov TroXefiou vcrTepov 
mrXiTai fxev 8L(r)(iXtoi /cat irevTaKoaioi, vijes Se 
<j>povp[8es e'lKoari,, aXXat 8e vrjes ai tovs (f)6pov9 
ayovcrai, tovs oltto tov Kvap.ov 8icrxtXtovs auSpas, eTt 
fie irpvTavelov kol op(f)avol koI 8eap.coTa)v (f)vXaK€s' 
airaai yap tovtois airo TOiv Koivatv rj 8i.0LKT](ns rjv. 

mentioned at the end of the list, of whom no estimate is given. 
Aristotle's statement is therefore fully justified. This list does not, 
however, apply to the times of Aristides, when, for instance, the dicasts 
were not paid, but to the result of the poHcy which Aristides initiated. 

apxal 8' ei/Sr/fioi k.t.X. : it has been generally believed, and is stated 
by Boeckh, Schomann, and others, that the higher magistrates at 
Athens were unpaid. But it does not appear that this rests on any 
definite authority, and two or three passages in this treatise are in- 
consistent with that view. C/. ch. 62. 

ev8r]fioi fiEv : the word ^o-av follows in the MS., but has been cancelled 
by a row of dots above it. 

onXirai, : MS. oirXcirai, a spelling which is also found elsewhere in the 

ai Toiis (j)6povs ayova-ai : Boeckh (P. E. II. 7) considers that the 
subject states brought their tributes to Athens themselves at the time 
pf the Dionysia in the city, and that the dpyupoXoyoi were only sent to 
collect special sums, such as arrears or fines. From this passage of 
Aristotle it appears that this was not the case, and that the tribute was 
regularly collected by certain vessels appointed for the purpose. These 
were ten in number (according to the usual estimate of a trireme's 
crew), two for each of the five tribute-districts of the Athenian empire, 
and were manned by 2000 persons appointed by lot. The construction 
of Tois ano tov Kva/iov Sicrxi^ious av&pas is not clear, but apparently a 
suitable word must be supplied from ayovam to govern it. 

vrpvTaveiov : this presumably stands for all the persons who for various 
reasons were maintained at the public expense in the Prytaneum. 


25. 'H fieu ovv Tpo(f)7) Tw 8r}fi(p 8ia tovtcou 
eyiuero. err] de eirra KoiX 5e'/ca (xaXia-Ta /xeTa to. 
MrjSLKa Siefjieivev rf iroXLTeia TrpoecrTcoTcov rav 
ApeoirayiTMVf Kaiirep vwocpepofxevrj Kara piLKpov. 
av^avop-ivov 8e rod irXrjOovs yevop-evos tov 8^p.ov 
wpoaTaTTjs 'E^iaArT^y 6 "^axIxoviBov, kolI Sokcoi' [Col. n. 
aScopoSoKTjTos eivat Koi SiKaios irpos ttjv TroXireiav, 
eiredero rrj ^ovXy. kcu irparov p.ev avetXev iroX- 
Xovs rmv 'ApeoirayiTcov, aymvas €7rt[0]e)oc!)v irepX 
rmv hicoKTipivcov' eireira rrjs fiovXrjs eVi K.6veovos 
ap^ovTos diravTa irepielXe to, eTrideTa 8l mv rjv -q 

25. en; 8e eTTTo (tal 8cKa /id\io-Ta /lera TO MijSiica : this presumably covers 
the whole period up to the archonship of Conon, mentioned just below, 
which belongs to the year 462 B. c. In that case Aristotle reckons the 
end of the Persian war as 478 B. C, the date of the Confederacy of 

2(»<^o)wSou : with this word the tenth column of the MS. breaks off, 
the rest of the column and the whole of another column being occupied 
by writing of a different description, after which the text of the Aristotle 
is resumed. The interpolated matter, which runs in the reverse 
direction, was evidently written before the Aristotle, and has been 
roughly struck out when the papyrus was required for the latter. It is 
not in the same hand as the Aristotle, but in one apparently of the 
same date and employing many of the same contractions. It contains 
a sort of argument to the speech of Demosthenes against Meidias, in 
the course of which there are references to the argument Kara KaiKiXiov, 
i.e. as given by Caecilius Calactinus, a rhetor of the age of Augustus, 
who wrote various works relating to the Greek orators, including one 
on the authenticity of the speeches of Demosthenes, from which the 
references just spoken of are probably taken. 

aySivas im^ipav : so Plutarch speaks of Ephialtes {Pericles 10), 
<j>o^epbu ovra toIs 6Xiyapxt<ois, Kal jrepi ras eiSivas Koi fiiti^eis Tav tov 
drj/iou dSiKovvTcov airapairriTov, 

eVi Kovavos apxovTos : this fixes for the first time a doubtful date in 
Athenian history, though it has been known that the overthrow of the 
Areopagus must have occurred about 460 B. C. From the whole of the 
present passage it is clear that Pericles had nothing to do, as a leader at 
any rate, with the attack on the Areopagus. Aristotle mentions him 
below (ch. 27) as taking away some of the privileges of the Areopagus, 


Trjs iroXiTeiag t^vXaKr], kcu to. fi\€v rjoty irevra- 
Kocriois, TO, 8e r^ ^W"? '^"^ '"^'^ SiKaaTrjpiois 
aTreScoKev. eTrparre 8e ravra crvuaiTiov yevofievov 

but this was apparently at a later time and a much less important 
affair, though it may justify the retention of his name in the Politics 
(II. 12), where it has been suspected of being a corrupt insertion in the 
text. This part of Aristotle's treatise does much to clear up an obscure 
period in the history of Athens, and to assign events to precise dates 
and authors where before we only knew of their bare occurrence. 
Among other things it is clear that the preeminence of Pericles dates 
from a later time than has generally been assumed. 

awavrmv yevo/jiivov Oe/iKTroKKeovs : the mention of Themistocles in this 
connection revolutionises the history of the later part of his career. 
We know from Thucydides (I. 135-138) that he was eventually 
ostracised, and that while living in banishment he was charged with 
Medism on certain evidence which was found at Sparta in connection 
with the condemnation and death of Pausanias ; on which occurred his 
flight to Persia, where he arrived in the reign of Artaxerxes and died 
some time afterwards. No dates or sufficient indications of time are 
given by Thucydides or any other authority, but it has been usual to 
place the ostracism in 471 B.C. and the flight to Persia about 466 B.C. 
Xerxes died in 465 B.C., and Thucydides states that Themistocles on 
his arrival in Persia found Artaxerxes vema-Ti ^aa-iKciovTa. The present 
passage shows that he was still in Athens in 462 B.C. He was then 
expecting a trial on the charge of Medism. This cannot be the charge 
which was made after the discovery of his complicity with Pausanias, 
since that took place while he was living in banishment ; but if the 
trial ever took place at all, and was not altogether averted by his 
proceedings against the Areopagus, it must be the earlier one, in which 
he secured an acquittal (Diod. XI. 54, c/. Grote, ed. 1870, vol. V. p. 
136). His ostracism cannot then well have occurred before 461 B.C., 
and his flight to Persia may be placed approximately in 460 B.C. 
Artaxerxes would then have been on the throne about five years, which 
is not inconsistent with Thucydides' phrase weoxttI Paa-iXevovra. The 
fifth year of a king who ruled for forty might well be spoken of as in the 
beginning of the reign. As to the date of his death, it is not very 
material and cannot be exactly determined. Plutarch, however, tells us 
that he was sixty-five when he died and that he was a young man (vcos 
&v ?n, c. 3) at the time of Marathon. If then his birth be placed in 
515 B.C. (and 520 B.C. would be the earliest date of which Plutarch's 
phrase could reasonably admit), his death would fall about 450 b. c. 
The narratives of Thucydides and Plutarch imply that he lived for 
some years in Persia, but this would allow a sufficient margin for any 
purpose ; and Plutarch's account of his death is too apocryphal for us 


QefiUTTOKkiovs, OS -qv fxev tcov 'ApeoTrayLTi&p/efieXXe 
5e Kpivea-dai MT/Sitr/iou. ^ovXo/xems Se KaraXvdrj- 
vai TTjv ^ovXrjv 6 QefiiaroKXys irpos fiev tov "E^loX- 
T7]v eXeyev otl (TVvapird^eLv avrou ?} fiovXr/ fieXXei, 
irpos 8e Tovs ' ApeoTraylras on Sel^ei tlvols avvLa-Ta- 
fi€VOvs iTTL KaraXva-ei ttJs iroXtTeias. ayayav 8e 
Tovs d(f)aipe0ePTas Trjs ^ovXijs ov Sierpifieu 6 
'EcjuaXrrjs, tva dei^rj r[oj;]y d6poi.^op,€vovs, 8k- 
Xeyero fierd cnrovdrjs avTols. 6 8' 'F,(j)idXTr]s wy 

to attach much weight to the connection in time which he indicates 
between it and the Athenian expeditions under Cimon at the time of 
the Egyptian revolt. 

It is strange that Plutarch should not have mentioned the part taken 
by Themistocles in the overthrow of the Areopagus. His behaviour, as 
indicated by Aristotle, with his ingenious intrigue whereby he continued 
to be able to represent himself as serving either side until the last 
moment, is entirely in accordance with his character as we know it 
from the rest of his life, and the story has ail the appearance of truth. 
Though Plutarch does not mention it, there is, however, one extant 
reference to the story, in the argument to the Areopagitica of Isocrates 
(contained in Dindorf's ed. of the Scholia to Aeschines and Isocrates, 
p. Ill), which explains the original loss of power by the Areopagus thus, 
'E<pia\Trjs Tis Kal Ge/xioTOKX^s p^peaxT-ToOirej t^ jroXei p^p^fiora (cai eiSores on 
fav hiKa<i6S><Tiv [qu. fitxacrsxrn' ?] ol 'Apeowaylrm, itavras a7roba>(rov(ri, 
KaraXvirai avrovs eTreurav ttjv ttoKw, oCwas tivos fiiWovros KpiBfjvai, 6 yap 
' ApiaToreKrjs Xeyfi iv rrj woXireia tS>v 'ABqvalav on Kal 6 0e/ij(7TOK\i)s airios 
Tjv fir] wdvTa SiKa^eiv Toils ' ApeoTraylras' &ijdev [lev as 8i avrovs tovto 
TTOiovVTes, TO 8' oXijBes fiia tovto irdvTa KaTaaKevd^ovres, eiTa oi 'Adrjva'ioi 
acfiivas aKoviravTes t^s ToiavTr/s (TV/i^ovXrjs KaT€\v<Tav avTovs. (Part of 
this quotation is given by Rose as Frag. 366.) This passage has, 
however, been ignored by the historians, possibly in the belief that it 
referred to some much smaller transaction than the complete overthrow 
of the supremacy of the Areopagus. 

Toiis a<j)aipedevTas t^s ^ovXrjs : this must be taken in the unusual sense 
of ' the persons despatched by the Areopagus.' Themistocles under- 
took to lead a deputation from the Areopagus to the house of Ephialtes, 
in order to show them the conspirators assembled there ; but on 
arriving near the place he let himself be seen talking ostentatiously 
with them, and Ephialtes, who had been previously warned, made bia 
escape to sanctuary. It is possible we should read aipedhras. 


flSei/ KaTa/T^fiyels Kadl^ei fiovo')(l,Twv eTrl tov ficofiov. 
davfiaa-avTcov 8e iravrmv to yeyov^os^ /cat fxera 
ravra avvaOpoLcrdclarjs rrjf ^ovXrjs rau "Trevra- 
Koaicov KaTT/yopovv ratv ' ApeoTrayirmv o r E0i- 
dXTr}9 Koi QefJLKTTOKXrjf, kou ttuXiv iv tS 8r]fia> toV 
avTov TpoTTOu, eco9 TrepieiXovTO avrcov rrjv ^vvajxiv, 
Kol avypidt] 8e kou 6 '^(jytaXTrj^ SoXocfyourjdelg fier 
ov TToXvv xpovov 8i 'ApKTToSiKov ^tJov TavaypULOV. 
rj fjL€v ovv rSiv ' KpeoirayLTrnv ^ovXr/ tovtou tov 
TpoTTOv ccTrea-Teprjdr] ttjs eVi/xeAe/ay. 

26. Mera 5e TavTa crvve^atvev avUaOai puaXXov 
TTjv TToXiTeiav 8ia tovs wpodvpxos SrjfjLaycoyovvTag. 
KaTa yap tovs KUipovs tovtovs avviweae p.r]^ 
rjyffjLoua ex^iu tovs tTneiKea-Tepovs, aXA' avTav 
wpoeaTavai ILipcava t,ov M.iXTid8ov, vecoTepov bvra 
KOU irpos TTjv TToXiv 01^6 iTpoaeXOovTa, irpos Se 

jrepiflXovTO '. MS. nepeiXovTo. 

8i' 'ApuTTobUov TOV Tavaypaiov : this Statement is quoted by Plutarch 
(Pericl. lo) as from Aristotle, 'Ei^taXrijv p,lv ovv . . . iwi^ov'Keia-avTes oi 
ex^pot 8i ' ApuTToSiKov tov Tavaypaiov Kpv<f>alas aveiXov, oas 'AptaTOTe\ijs 
e'iprjKev (Rose, Frag. 367). 

26. dvie<rBai : MS. avftf(Tdai, 

fiycpova : the first three letters of this word are very doubtful, and 
there seems to have been some blunder in the writing. 

veoTepov ovTa : if Cimon took part in the battle of Salamis and 
accompanied Aristides on the naval expedition which resulted in the 
establishment of the Confederacy of Delos, as Plutarch tells us [Cim. 
5, 6), he cannot have been less than about thirty-five at the time of the 
overthrow of the Areopagus by Ephialtes. At the same time we know 
that he took no part in politics in early life, and though his great 
victory at the Eurymedon was won in 466 B.C., it is quite intelligible 
that he was not of much weight as a political leader in the con- 
troversies of this time, and that the aristocratical party was therefore 
practically without a head. Moreover Plutarch's authority is not 
above suspicion in his narratives of the early performances of his 
heroes, as has been seen in the case of Pisistratus. 


TOVTOis €^6apdai tovs iroXXovs Kara TroXefioW Trjs 
yap (TTpaT^ias yivop.evr]s iv tols totc -^povois e'/c 
KaToXoyov, kcu o-rpaTrjymv icjiia^TJafxevcou am-eipcov 
fiev Tov TToXe/xelv TipMp.4va>v 8e 8ia rag irarpiKas 
ho^as, aXei avve^aiuev rmu i^LouTcov ava 8i(t\lXlovs 
rj TpicrxiXiovs aTraXXvcrOai, [rojore avaXla-KecrOoLL 
Tovs eiruLKels Kai tov 8r]fiov kcu twv ^viropcov, to, 
fj,ev ovv aXXa iravra 8lcokovv ou^ ofioicos kcu wpo- 
Tepov TOLS vofioLS TrpocTc^ouTes, Trjv 5e twv kvvia 
ap-^ovTcov atpecTiv ovk eKiuovv, aXX' eKTcp €T€i jxeTO. 
TOV ^(jiiaXTOv davuTov eyvcacrav kcu ck ^evyLTmv 
TrpoKpiveaOai tovs KXrjpcoaofievovs twv kvvia ap- 
ypvTcav, KCU irpcoTos rjp^ev i^ avTcov M.vr]cn6ei87]s. 
ol 8e irpo TovTov iravTes i^ lirirecov koH ircvTaKOcno- 
fie8[p,vcov Tfcrav, ol (5e) ^eyytrat tols eyKVKXiovs 

SjcrxiXious : MS. 8Krx«Xiouy. 

imvovv : MS. eKeivovv, 

exToj er« /iera tov 'E(/)td\Tou davarov : as the final victory of Ephialtes 
over the Areopagus occurred in 462 B.C. (cf. supr.), and the archonship 
of Mnesitheides falls in 457 b. c, it follows that the murder of Ephialtes 
must have taken place in the same year as the former event. 

KOI eK (evyiTav : it is practically certain that originally only the 
pentacosiomedimni were eligible to the archonship (cf. supr., note on 
ch. 7, aTTeveifiev), but it has generally been supposed, on the authority 
of Plutarch {Arist. 22), that after the Persian wars the archonship was 
thrown open to all classes without distinction. The more precise 
Statements of Aristotle must overrule the account of Plutarch, and it 
must be taken for certain that the fcuyirai were not admitted to this 
office until the date here named, and that the thetes were never 
legally qualified for it at all, though in practice they were admitted in 
the time of Aristotle and probably much earlier {cf. ch. 7, sub Jin.). 
There is no direct evidence to show when the 'mireis became eligible, 
but it may very hkely have been at the time indicated by Plutarch, 
when there also must have been an admission of the lower classes 
to some of the inferior magistracies, which Plutarch confused with the 

ol be ^evy'iTai : MS. om. 8f. 

ras eyKVKKiovs : i. e. the inferior magistracies. 


rfp-^ov, ei /i^ tl Trapecoparo rmv iv Tols vofiois. erei 
de Tre/MTTTm fiera ravra eVt XvaiKparovs ap^ovTos oi 
TpiaKOvra SiKacTTai KaTecrrrja-au TraXiv ol KaXovfievoi 
Kara Srjuovs' kcu rptrcp fier avrov errl 'AutiSotov 
8ia TO TrXrjOos twv ttoXltcou, TlepiKXeovf eiTrovTOS, 
eyvcoaav firj pi€Te-)(eLV rrjs TroXecog os av fxr] i^ a.p,^olv 
daroiu y yeyovas. 

I"]. Mera 5e Tavra irpos to drjuaycoyelu iXOovTO^s 
HepiKXeovs, kcu irpcoTov evSoKLfirjcravTos OTe kutt]- 

fl fiij Tl TTapeaparo : this seems to mean that ahhough only members 
of the first two classes were legally eligible to the archonship, yet 
occasionally persons not so qualified were allowed to slip in ; just as in 
later times persons not possessing even the qualification of a fewyirijr 
were elected archons by a notorious legal fiction. 

tS)v iv TO(s vojiois : before these words the MS. originally had the 
phrase vnb tS>v hfjuav, but it has been erased. 

iiti AvciKparovs ap^ovTos: i.e. 453 B.C. 

01 rpiaKovra biKaa-rai : cf. ch. 53. These oflicials were judges of 
assize for local cases, and were established by Pisistratus (ch. 16). 

eVi 'AvnSdxou : i. e. 45 1 B. C. 

27. McTO 8e Tavra Trpos to drmayioyeiv iKdovTOs IlipiKkiovs : it is noticeable 
that Aristotle does not consider Pericles to have been a leader in the 
democratic party till about 450 B.C., but he must have been taking a 
considerable share in politics much earlier. The date of his ac- 
cusation of Cimon, which Aristotle mentions as his first important 
public appearance, is not fixed. Plutarch states that Cimon was 
brought to trial on a charge of bribery after his return from the 
reduction of Thasos, and that Pericles was the most active of his 
prosecutors (Cim. 14). This would put the date in 463 B.C., which is 
quite possible. Pericles was then young (veos &v) and it was his first 
prominent apt in public life ; and though he undoubtedly supported 
Ephialtes and Themistocles in their attack on the Areopagus he could 
not be called a leader of his party till several years later. At the same 
time it must be observed that Aristotle proceeds in the next chapter to 
say that he established the system of payment for services in the 
law-courts dvTiSrip.ayayS>v irphs ttjv Kip.a)vos exmoplav, Cimon died in 
449 B.C., so that this important step, which shows Pericles as a leader 
of the people, must have occurred several years before that date. We 
know that he was commander of an expedition in the Crissaean Gulf 
in 454 B.C. (Thuc. I. ill), and it will not be going far wrong to date 
the ascendancy of Pericles in Athens from a year or two before that 


yoprja-e ras evOvvas K-L/xcavos a-TparriyovvTos vlos 
mv, SrjfioTtKCOTepav en avvf^T] yevecrdat rrjv ttoXi- 
Teiav' Koi yap raiv ' ApeoTrayircov evta TrapeiXero, 
Kai fiaXi(TTa Trpovrpeyj^ev ttjv ttoXlv iiri ttju vavTiKr/v 
SvvafiLv, i^ -qs avve^T] OapprjaavTas tovs ttoXXovs 
airaaav ttju iroXLTelav paXXov ayeiv ei? avTOvs. 
pera Se ttjv ev ^aXapivi vavpa^iav ivos Sei TrevTij- 
Koarm krei ein. YlvdoScop^ovj ap^ovTos 6 irpos IleAo- 
irovvrjCTLOvs iuea-Trj iroXepos, iv cb KaraKXeia-deis o 
StJpos eV TiS aoret koi avvedicrdiis iu rals (TTpaTials 
pia-6o(f)op€Lu, ra pev eKcov to, 5e aKcov TrporjpeiTO 
rr/v iroXireiav 8toiK€iv avros. eTroirjae 8e koI pLado- 
^opa ra SLKaarrjpia HepiKXrjs irpcoTos, dvTLSrjpayco- 
ymv Trpos ttjv Y^ipxovos eviropiav. 6 yap K.[pcou, are 
TvpavviKTjv €)(cov ovaiav, TrpcoTov pev ras KOLvas 
XrjLTOvpyias iXrjiTovpyeL Xapirpms, eireira tS>v drjpo- 

date. The murder of Ephialtes and banishment of Themistocles left 
the way clear for him. 

tZu ' Ap€07TayiTS>v evia rrapfiKero : this may mean either that Pericles 
assisted to some extent in Ephialtes' proceedings for stripping the 
Areopagus of its power, or that he carried the same movement further 
after the death of Ephialtes. In either case it is consistent with his 
not having taken a leading part in the great struggle. 

ivos bei TTfKTijKoo-Tw eVet : the date of the outbreak of the Pelopon- 
nesian war is of course as well fixed as any date in Greek history. 
Pythodorus was archon in 432 B.C., which is the 49th year after 
Salamis, and Thucydides (II. 2) tells us that he had only four months 
of his archonship still to run at the time of the Theban attack on 
Plataea, which fixes the date in the spring of 431 B.C. 

KaTaKKeiadels : MS. KaraxXio'deif. 

iiroiriiTe he Koi fu(T6o<f)6pa to. SiKatrr^pia IlepiKK^s irparos : this confirms 
the passage in the Politics (II. 12), ra be btKaa-rripia p.ia-docj)6pa KaTea-Ttja-e 

XriiTovpyias e\riiTovpyei : these forms are given in Hesychius as Attic 
variants of the more common Xeir-, which seems to justify the reten- 
tion of the MS. spelling here. 


Ta>v €Tpe(l)e ttoXXovs' i^T]v yap tS fiovXofiivw 
AaKiaScov Kaff eKaa-Trjv ttjv rj/jLepau eXOovTi irap 
avTov kyeiv ra fierpta, en 5e ra -^copLa iravTa 
a^paKTa rju, ottcos l^rjv rro fiovXofievco rrjs mrmpas 
airoXaveiv. irpos 8r] Tavrrjv rrju ^oprjyiau eiri- 
Xeiirofxevos 6 HepLKXrjs rrj ovcrta, a-vybfiovXevovTos 
avTm Aa/juouiSov tov Oir}0eu (oy iSoKei t&v TroXe/xau 
elarfyrjTrjS' eluai tS YlepiKXel, 8io Koi marpaKKrav 
avTOv va-repov), eirei toIi ISlocf -qTraTO 8i86vai rols- 
TToXXois Ta avTotv, Karea-Kevaare fjLicr0o(f)opau Tols 
8iKaaTaLS' dcj)' wv aiTLavTai rives X^^P^ yevecrOai, 
KXrjpovfjieucov eVijiieAtay aet fidXXov rmv tv^ovtcov 
rj Tcou iiTLeiKcav avOpoiircov. ■qp^aro 8e fiera ravra 
Kou TO 8eKa.^eLv, Trpmrov KaraSei^avTos 'Avvtov ixerd 
rrjv iv UvXm crTpaTTjyLav. Kpivop-evos yap vtto 
Tivcov 8ia TO diro^aXelv YlvXov, SeKoiaas to 8LKaarT7j-^ 
piov dTre(l)vy£v. 

28. Efflff fiev odu TleptKXrjs irpoeiaTrjKei tov 
8r]p,ov fieXTLco Ta Kara ttjv iroXLTeiav rjv, TeXevTTj- 

AoKtaSoJv : Plutarch (CiM. lo) quotes Aristotle (though without 
specifying the precise work) as authority for this fact, in opposition to 
the story that Cimon kept open house for the whole of the poorer 
population of Athens (Rose, Frag. 363). Cf. also Pericles 9, which 
reproduces the substance of the present passage. 

oiras i^ffv : this is the reading of the MS., though it may be ques- 
tioned whether we should not read i^fj. 

a-viifiovXeiovTos k.t.X. : quoted by Plutarch (Pericl. 9), rpcVerai jrpos 
Tr]V tS)V brifioaiav biavojirjv, <rvii^ov\ei(TavTos avT& Aajiavibov tov Ott/BeVf 
i>s 'ApKrroTeXijs iaroprjKev (Rose, Frag. 365). 

OS : MS. ovs. 

'Avvtov: MS. avTov, but that this is a mere clerical error is cleai" 
both from the context and from the fact that the passage is referred to 
by Harpocration (s. v, hnui^atv), 'ApiorroreXijs 6' iv 'AStjvaiav TroXirei^ 
"Avvt6v tprjo-t KaraSet^ai tci Sexd^eip ra biKaa-Ttipia (Rose, Frag. 371). 

28. ^eXt/o) : MS, /SeXrEio). 


aavTOS 5e Ile/JiKAeoyy ttoXv ^eipco. TrpaiTou yap 
t6t€ TrpocTTaTrjv eXa^ev 6 8rjp.os ovk evSoKi/jiovvTa 
TO. irapa tols eTrieiKea-iV iv 5e tois Trporepov 
XpovoLS aet SiereXovv ol eViei/cety SrjpxiyaiyovvTes. 
^^ "■PXVS t^^v yap Kou Trpatros iyeuero Trpoa-TaTrjs 
Tov Stj/xou ^oXcop, 8evT€po9 de YieLaiarpaTos tS)v 
evyevmv Ka\ yvoopip^cov KaTaXvOeicnjs Be rrjs Tvpav- 
vl8os YiXeicrOeurjs, tov yevovs cbv t&v 'AXKp.eovi8ai', 
/cat Tovrm fiev ovSeis rju auTL(rTa(ncoTT]9 toy e^iirea-ov 
OL wepl TOV 'laayopau. peTo. 8e raOra tov p,lv 
8-qp.ov 7rpoeicrTrjK€L ^avOiinros, tcov 8e yvapip-wv 
M.iXTia8r]s' eireiTa Qep.iaTOKXr]s kcu ' ApicrT€i8T]s' 
p.€Ta 5e TovTovs 'E^taAr?;? pev tov 8ripov, Y^ipxov 
8' 6 M.iXTia8ov Tcou evTTopcoW eha HepiKXrjs p-ev 
TOV 8r]p,ov, QovKv8L8rjS 8e twv eTepcov, Krj8eaTr}<f asv 
¥^Lp.covo9. IlepiKXeovs 8e TeXevTrjaavTos tS>v pev 
ewLCpavav TrpoeiaTrjKei Ni/ctay, 6 cV Si/ceAia reAeu- 
Tr]aas, tov 8e Brjpov YiXewv 6 K-XeaiveTov, by 8oKel 

evSoKiiiovvra : at first written evioKiixovfuvov, then -ira was written 
above, but the letters -/jievov, which should have been struck out, 
remain accidentally uncancelled. 

Trpoa-Tarris tov Srjfiov : the way in which Aristotle uses this title shows 
that it had become a technical phrase indicating a definite position, 
but it does not support the view of those who hold it to have been an 
office to which there was a regular appointment. The most that it 
proves is that the popular party in the assembly recognised one 
individual as its especial leader at any given time, and that he was 
accepted by the world at large as the representative of that party for 
the time being. The fact that Solon and Pisistratus and Cleisthenes 
are spoken of in precisely the same way as Cleon and Cleophon is 
enough to prove this ; and it may further be noticed that Miltiades, 
Cimon, and Thucydides are represented as holding exactly the same 
position in reference to the eSVopoi 01; yvapiiioi as their rivals have in 
reference to the Srj/ios. 

KXcaivcTou : MS. KXaieverov. 

78 AP1ST0TEA0T2 

fxaXia-ra 8ia(j)deipai rov Stj/jlov tols opixals, kul 
irpcoTOs eVi tov firjfxaros aviKpaye k<u iXoLBoprjaaro 
Kou TrepL^ooaap.evos eSrjixrjyoprjcre, tS>v aXX(ov €v 
Kocr/xco XeyovTcov, eha fiera tovtovs toov p,ev 
erepcov Qijpafievrjs 6 "Ayvcovos, tov 8e 8r]fiov KAeo- 
(j)a>v 6 XvpoTTOios, OS Koi Trjv Buo^oXiav ^Tropiae 
irpatTos' Kol ■)(p6vov fiev TLva SiedlSov, /xera 8e 
ravra KareXvcre KaXXiKpdrrjs Ylaiauievs irpcoTos 

Trepi^aa-dnevos : the scholiast to Lucian ( Tim. 30) refers to Aristotle 
for this fact, 'ApiiTTOTekqs he kcu Ttepi^coaancvov avTov Xcyet Sr]firiyopfi(rai, els 
TTjv 6paa-vTr)Ta avTov dnoa-KmirTav. This is given by Neumann in his 
edition of the fragments {Frag. 33), but Rose adopts another reading 
of the passage, which assigns Aristotle's authority instead to a state- 
ment that Cleon obstructed the making of peace with Sparta (Frag. 
368). The scholiast to Aeschines (Dindorf, p. 14) uses nearly the same 
words, XeyeTot fie lS\ea>v o Srjpaymyos irapa^as to e^ Wovs (tx^P^ irepi^aad- 
pevos 8r]prjyoprja-at,' 

TTjv hua^oKiav : this cannot refer either to the payment for attendance 
at the ecclesia, which we know from ch. 41 to have been instituted by 
Agyrrhius and Heracleides, nor to that for service in the courts, which 
it is certain from Aristophanes had been raised to three obols long 
before the time of Cleophon (Knights, 11. 51, 255 ; Wasps, 609, 684, 
690). The hia^oKia (or finB/SfXia, as it is generally spelt) par excellence 
was the same as the theoricon, the payment to the populace of the 
price of admission to the theatre. This, however, is generally assigned 
to Pericles, on the authority of Plutarch (Pericl. 9) and Ulpian (on 
Demosthenes' Olynth. I). The authority nevertheless is not con- 
vincing. Plutarch speaks somewhat generally (deapiKois koi SiKaanKois 
\rippa<Ttv oKXms re picrBocjsopais koI xopijyi'ais irvvSeKacras to TrXijflor), and 
his accuracy is not to be trusted in such details ; in fact, in the same 
chapter he speaks of Pericles as the chief agent in the overthrow of the 
Areopagus. It therefore seems best to take the word here in its 
natural sense, and to suppose that the diobolia was first established by 
Cleophon and augmented by Callicrates to three obols. There are, 
however, still some difficulties to be explained. It is evident from 
Demosthenes that the price of the ordinary seats at the theatre 
continued to be two obols (de Cor. p. 234, iv toIv bvolv ofioKolv eSeapovv 
av), and it may therefore appear impossible that the theoricon should 
have been augmented. But we gather from Ulpian (/. c.) and Harpo- 
cration (s. v. detopmd, quoting Philinus) that the money thus distributed 
was intended to provide not only a seat in the theatre, but also a meal 


v7ro(rx6fMevo9 iwidi^o-eiv Trpos toiv Bvolv o^oXoiu 
aXXov ofioXou. tovtwv jxev ovv dfX(j)OT€pa>v ddvarov 
Kareyvcoaav va-repow elcodeu yap, kolv i^aTrar-qdrj 
TO TrXrjdos, varepov piaelv tovs ti TrpocrayayovTas 
TTOieiv avTovs t5>v pJi) KaXm kyovTcav. diib Se 
KAeo0(»i/roy rjdrj SieSexovTo avv€)(W9 Trjv Srjpayco- 
yiav ol paXicrra ^ovXofievoi dpaavveaOai kcCI xapi- 
^eadat tols iroXXols Trpos rd irapavTLKa /3Ae7roz/rey. 
8oKov(TL fie ot ^eXriaroi yeyovevat rav 'Kd-qvriai 
7roXLT€vaap.ev(ov perd tovs dp^aiovs f^iKias koL 
QovkvSlStjs Koi QrjpapevTjs' Koi irep\ pev Niklov 

to celebrate the holiday. It therefore appears that the ground on 
which the extension of the theoricon was made was that of helping the 
citizens to enjoy the great festivals thoroughly. 

A further problem is suggested by the mention of the name of 
Callicrates. There was an Athenian proverb {mep ra KaXXiKparovs, used 
in the case of anything exceeding all reasonable measure ; and the 
origin of it is explained by Zenobius (VI. 29) from the present treatise, 
ApiOTOTcXijr Se (j)rj(nv iv rfj 'A6rjvaiav TroXiTfia KaWtKpari/w Tiva irpaTov 
tS)V StKaarav Toiis fucrdovs eh vwep^oXriv av^rjirai, o8ev Kail ttjv irapoiplav 
elprj(rdai (Rose, Frag: 422). No such passage occurs in the treatise as 
it stands at present, and the coincidence of the name Callicrates may 
suggest that this is the place referred to. But, if so, it is certain that 
Zenobius completely misunderstood it, since it is unquestionable, as 
shown above, that the pay of the dicasts had been raised to three 
obols long before the time of Callicrates, and there would moreover 
have been no great absurdity in proposing to raise their stipend from 
two to three obols. As, however, it appears from the words of Zenobius 
that Aristotle actually quoted the proverb in question, it seems certain 
that his reference is to some passage which is missing in the present 
condition of the MS. 

TToKiTeviranivtav : MS. TroKfiTev(rancva)V. 

NiKf'as Koi 0ovKv8cSrjs Kot Qrjpapevijs : this passage is referred to by 
Plutarch (JVic. 2), eveariv ovv Trepl NiKi'ou rrpSiTov emeiu o yeypaxjjev 'Apwr- 
TOTeXrjs, oTi Tpels eyevovTO fieXTiaroi rS)V jroXirSr koi TraTpiKTjv exovres eiivotav 
Koi ^tXiav Trpos t6i/ Sjjixov, NiKi'ay 6 NjAo/pdrou Koi OovkvSiSt]! 6 MeXrja-iov Kal 
e^pa/ihris 6 'Ayvoavos (Rose, Frag. 369). This judgment shows with 
some clearness the political prepossessions of Aristotle; but his 
statement that nearly everyone was of one mind as to the merits of 

8o API2T0TEA0T2 

KoX QovKvSlSov Travres a")(€8ov 6fioXoyov(nu avBpas 
yeyovivai ov fiovov KaXovs Koyadovs aXXa kul 
TToXtrt/couy Koi rfj TroXei Tracy irarpLKas \pa>ix€vovs, 
Trepi Be Qrjpa/Meuovs Sia to crvfi^TJvai kut avTov 
Tapa^co8eLS ras TroXireias dp(j)i(r^r]Tr]ais ttjs Kpiaecos 
io-TL. SoKel pevTOL Tois pr] irapepycas a'iro(f)aLvo- 
peuoLS oi;^ axnrep avrov Sca^aXXovcn Traaas ras 
TToXireias KaraXveLV, dXXa iraaas irpoayeiv ecos 
prjSev Trapavopolev, as dvuapevos TroAtreuecr^at Kara 
irdaas, oirep earlv dyaOov ttoXltov epyov, irapavo- 
povaais 8e ov (rvy)(a)pS)v dXTC oTrexdavopevos. 

29. "Etay pev odv laoppoTra ra Trpaypara Kara 
Tov TToXepov r]v 5i60[i;Aarroz/] rrjv SrjpoKpaTiav. 
eVei 8e perd ttjv ev ^iKeXla yevopevrju SLa(f)opau 
la^vpoTara ra tcov AaKeSaipovLCov iyevero Sia tt/u 
Trpos ^acriXea crvppa^Lai>, rjvayKdadTjaav pe^racrTTj- 
cralvrey rrjv drfpoKpariau KaTacrTTJaai riqv eVt Toiv 
TerpaKocrtcov TroXiTelav, elTro^vTojs top peu irpo tov 
■^r](l)LcrpaT09 Xoyov M.r]Xo^[ov, ttjv Se yvcoprjv ypa- 
y^avTos Ylvdo8a>pov To\y] . . . tlov, paXicTTa Se 

Nicias and Thucydides is somewhat noticeable. As to Theramenes, it 
is clear from Aristotle's own defence of him here that he was simply an 
Opportunist with aristocratical sympathies. 

irarptKas : this has been corrected in the MS. to icaXSr, but the 
quotation of the passage in Plutarch (given above) confirms the more 
uncommon word. 

nevToi : -MS. ficv, but there is no corresponding 8c, and the omission of 
Toi is easily explained by the following tois. 

29. laoppona : MS. itropona. 

Biacfiopdu : so the MS., but it may be questioned whether Sia(j>dopav is 
not the right word. 

MtjXo^i'ou : probably the same as the Melobius who was afterwards 
one of the Thirty ; he was one of the party sent to arrest Lysias and 
Polemarchus (Lysias, conir. Erat. p. 121). 


(TVjXTreicrOiVTcov t5>v TroAXdjj/ hia to vofii^eiv ^aaiXea 
[aa-fievojv iavTols (rvfnroX€}iy]a€iv iav 8l oXiycov 
TTOirja-covTai rrjv iroXiTeiau. rjv de to ■^■q^Lcrfia tov [Col. 12.] 
Tlvdodcopov TOLovSe' tov Srjfiov iXeadai fieTO. Tav 
"jrpovTrapypvToyv SeKa irpo^ovXcov aXXovs e'lKOCTL e'/c 
Tcov VTrep TeTTupaKovTa cttj yeyouorcov, otTives ofxo- 
aavT^s r) pnqv (rvyypd^eiv a av riyviVTai ^eXTicTTa 
elvuL Ty TToAet (rvyypa'^ovfTL irepl ttJs (TcoTrjpias' 
i^elvai Se /cat tcov aXXoav tS ^ovXopLevw ypd(j)eiv, 
Xv e^ aTravTcov alpcovTai to dpiaTov. K.XeiTO(j)(ov 8e 
Ta fiev dXXa KaduTrep HvBoScopos ehrev, Trpoaava^rj- 
Trjaai 8e tovs aipedevTas eypayf/^ev /cat tovs Trarpiovs 
vop,ovs ovs ^Xeiadivrjs kdrjKev ore KadlcrTrj ttjv 
SrjpoKpuTiav, OTTCos aKovaavTes Koi tovtcop ^ovXev- 
(TCovTai TO dpicTTOv, coy 01) SrjfJLOTLKrjv aAAa irapa- 
TrXfjaiau oicrav ttjv YJ\.€L(r6evovs iroXtTeiau tjj 

rav irpovnapxovTav Seko 7rpo0ov\a>v : Thucydides (VIII. 67) speaks of 
ten persons being elected as (rvyypa(t>ecs avTOKparopes, but says nothing 
of the additional twenty mentioned by Aristotle. The latter is, however, 
supported by Philochorus and Androtion, as appears from Harpocration 
(j. V. <Tvyypa<^€is), who after quoting the words of Thucydides adds riaav 
de ol fiev iravTes wyypa^els X oi rare alpeSevres, Kadd iprjirii^ AvdpoTiau re 
.Kai 0iX6)(opos, ixdrfpos cv tJ 'AtBiBi' 6 8e QovKv&l8r)s tS>v I efivripAvevcrc 
nSvcov T&v npo^ovktov. From Aristotle's account it would appear that 
there was an existing board of ten irpofiovKoi, which was probably 
the continuation of that which was first appointed after the news of the 
Sicilian disaster (Thuc. VIII. i) ; and to this twenty additional mem- 
bers were elected for the special purpose on hand. That Thucydides 
and Aristotle are speaking of the same body is clear from their accounts 
of the work done by it, as well as from the words of Harpocration. 

TO apia-Tov : there is a single stroke following to in the MS., which 
looks as though the copyist had begun to write tov but had seen that it 
was wrong before completing the word, to apia-Tov is confirmed by the 
recurrence of the phrase below. 

KXf(ro0£i/ : as Pythodorus is spoken of above as the author of the 
yvafiTj or yjni(l>uTp.a which was passed by the assembly, it would appear 
that the rider proposed by Cleitophon was rejected. 



"^oXcovos. 01 8' aipedevTCS irpSiTOV /xev eypayjrav 
iiravayKis eivac tovs irpvTaveis airavra ra Xeyop-eva 
Trepl Tr]9 (rcoTrjpla^ iTri\lrr](f)[^ei,v, eireiTa ras tS)v 
irapavofJLcou ypa(f)as koL ras elaayyeXLas Kai ras 
TTpoKXrjaeis avelXov, owcos av oi ideXovres 'Adrjualoi 
(Tvp^ovXevcoai Trepl Tcoi> irpoKeipivcoV lav Se tls 
TOVTcov •)(apLV rj ^r]p,iOL r/ Trpoa-KaXijrai rj elcrayrj etg 
SiKaarypLov, evBei^iv avTOV eivai kcu airaycoyrjv 
irpos TOVS (TTpaTrfyovs, tovs Se (TTpaTrjyovs irapa- 
Sovvai Tols evSeKa OavaTco ^r/picoaai. peTa 5e TavTU 
Trjv TToXiTciav SieTa^av TovSe Tpoirov to. peu xprj- 
puTa {to) irpoiTLOVTa prj i^elvai aXXocre Sairavyja-ai rj 
els Tov TToXepov, Tas S" ap^as apiaOovs oip\eLV airacras 
ecos av 6 TToXepos y, irXrjv tS>v evvea apyovTOiv koL 
Twv irpvTavecov ot av acriv tovtovs 8e (pepeiv Tpels 
ofioXovs eKUCTTOv Trjs Tjpepas. ttjv 8' aXXrjv ttoXc- 
Teiav iTTCTpeyj/ai iraaLv 'Adrjvaimv tols 8vvaTcoTaTots 
/cat Tots acopacTLV koH tols )(prjpa(rLv XtjiTOvpyelv prj 
eXaTTOv T] irevTaicL(r)(j.XLOis ecos av 6 iroXepos y' 

TTpSiTov fih ^ypaijfav k.t.X. : this is substantially the same as the 
briefer summary of Thucydides (VIII. 67), that the avyypacfieis pro- 
posed nothing except that any Athenian might suggest anything 
he hked without fear of penalties (e'leicai /nev 'Adrjvaia avSpX flnelv 
yvap-rfv ^v av Tis ^oiXi/Toi* fjv bi Tis tov elndvra rj ypdsjfjjTai Trapavofitov fj 
aXXo) TO) Tp6ma i3Xa\|/'j, /ieydXas £r)ij,las iireBearav), 

els biKacFTrjpiov : MS. i; cis SiKatrTrjpiov, plainly a mere clerical error. 

TO, fiiv ;)^p^jaaTa K.r.X. : cf. Thucydides (VIII. 65), Xoyor re . . . irpoetp- 
yacTTO avTois i)S ovre /uiTBocpoprjTeov eirj SXkovs rj tovs CTTpaTevofjievovs, oiVe 
p,e6eKTeov rav irpayjiaToiv irXeioaiv fj TrevTaKurpfiXioif, kui tovtois ol hv 
fxaKiaTa toIs te xPW'^"'^ *"' ''<''* aapairiv dxpeXe'iv oloi re &(nv. 

TO irpoaiovra : the article seems to be required, and its omission in 
the MS. is easily explained by the similarity of the termination of the 
preceding word. 

J7el»^aKl(rx'^''olJ : corrected in the MS. to TrevTaKia-xO^iwv, the corrector 
having apparently overlooked the fact that 7 precedes. 


Kvpiovs 5' clvaL TOVTOVs Kou CTVvdriKas avvTiOecrdai 
irpos ovs OLV ideXcoaiV eXecrOai Be kcu tyjs (pvXrjs 
eKaa-Trjs deKa auSpas virep TerrapaKOVTa €Tr] yeyo- 
voras, o'ltlvcs KaraXe^ovai tovs irevTaKLcr^^iXiovs 
6p.6(ravT€s Kaff Upav reXeimv. 

30. Ot p.ep ovv alpedevres ravra avviypa^av. 
KvpcoOevTcov Se tovtcov eiXouTO (rcfimv avrav ol 
irevTaKLa-xiXioi, tovs avaypa^ovras Trjv TroXiTeiav 
€KaTov avSpas. ol 8' alpeOevres dveypa^av Koi 
i^iqveyKav rdSe. fiovXeveiv p-eu kut iviavTov tovs 
vw€p rpiuKouTa errj yeyovoras avev p.i,(rdo(f)opd9' 
TOVTCOV 5' etftti Toi)f (TTpaT'qyovs koL tovs evvea 
dp-)(ovTas KOL Tov lepopvrjpova kcu tovs Ta^idpyovs 
KCU lTnrap-)(ovs kcu (pvXap^ovs kcu dp-)(pvTas els tu 

30. elKovTO ^(filov avrav ol 7rej'TaKi(r;(iX(oi tovs dvaypa-\JAovTas : this State- 
ment, which is confirmed below (oi uiro t&v Trfyi-a/fio-^fiX/mi/ aipfde'vTes), 
seems to be in direct contradiction to the assertion in ch. 32 that the 
5000 Aoym fiovov fipeBrja-av, with which Thucydides agrees (VIII. 92). 
Probably the body that elected the 100 commissioners here spoken 
of was of the same kind as that which took over the government after 
the fall of the Four Hundred, which consisted of all who could furnish 
arms (Thuc. VIII. 97), though it was nominally Five Thousand. 
The same may have been the case now. All who could bear arms 
were provisionally entitled the Five Thousand until a" body of that 
exact number had been drawn up by the board of 100 which was to 
be appointed for that purpose. It is clear that the Five Thousand 
contemplated by the complete constitution planned by the leaders of 
the revolution were not to be an indefinite body including all persons 
who could bear arms, but were to be limited to the number mentioned ; 
for in Thuc. VIII. 86 the envoys from the Four Hundred tell the 
army in Samos that they will all be members of the Five Thousand 
in turn. This body would have required to be carefully drawn up, 
and till that could be done it seems that all qualified persons wfere 
provisionally considered to belong to it, and that they elected the 
hundred persons here spoken of, who drew up complete schemes 
alike for the present administration of Athqps and for its future 

G 2 


(fypovpia /cat rafiias rmu iepS>v ^p-qpLarav ry 0[e(o 
KoiX t\oIs aXKoLS deals 8eKa koI iXX-rjuoTafiLas Koi 
T&v aXXcov oalcov xpr/ixaToiv aTravrcov elKoaiu ol 
dLa^eipLovaiv koI tepoiroiovs /cat iTrifxeXrjTas SeKa 
eKarepovs' alpeladai 8e Travras tovtovs €K irpoKpi- 
Tcou, e/c Tcou del jBovXevovTcou ttXclovs TrpoKpivovras, 
Tas S" aXXas ap-)(as airacras KXrjpcoras eivai Kai fir/ 
e/c TTJs ^ovXrjs' Toiis 8e eXXr/voTap-ias ol kav 8ca- 
)(€LpL^cocrL TO. ^prjp,aTa prj crvplSovXeveiv. /SouAa? 
5e TTOiTJcrai Terrapas e/c rrjs -qXiKias rrjs elprjpevrjs 

Tafias tS>u Upav ^prjfiaToip r^ Sea Kot rots aXXotff Oeois '. cf. Boeckh, 
Public Economy, II. 5. Every temple at Athens had its own treasurers, 
those of the temple of Athena being far the most important ; but about 
419 B.C. the various treasurers, with the exception of those of Athena, 
were united in a single board under the title of Taniai tS>v hWav SeSip. 

iWrivoTofiias : it is presumably to this passage that Harpocration 
{s, v.) refers, when he says, oti ap^rj tk rju 01 iWrjvoTaiuai., oJ Siep^eipifoi/ 
TO ;^p^fiaTa, Kol ' ApiiTTOTe\r]S StjXoi iv rrj 'Adr/valaiv TroXireia (Rose, Frag. 
362). There is no fuller description of them in the second part of the 
work, because the ofifice did not exist in Aristotle's own day. It is not 
clear why they are named here as belonging to the Council, when im- 
mediately below it is stated that they were not to do so. 

Kai Ta>v aWav otjiav xprffxariov etKotri : Boeckh (/. c.) considers the 
public money to have been in the keeping of the Tap-iai rrjs 6eou, but 
the present passage, showing that there were to be different treasurers 
for the sacred and the secular treasures under the constitution of the 
Four Hundred, affords a very strong presumption that the same was 
the case ordinarily at Athens. 

jtXeious npoKpivovTas : that is, the holders of these offices, who were 
all to be members of the Council of Four Hundred, were at the expira- 
tion of their term of office to nominate a number of candidates to 
succeed themselves. The final selection among the candidates thus 
nominated rested with the full Council. 

&ovKas hk Troirjarm rtrrapas k.t.X. ; the arrangement of the jSouXai is 
not very clearly expressed, but it seems to be as follows. There were 
to be four councils, each of a hundred persons, which were to cast lots 
for precedence, the one securing the first lot to hold office for a year, 
while the others followed in order, each on the termination of its 
predecessor's term. Iii the first instance they were to be formed from 
the board of one hundred which was drawing up the constitution (jois 


€LS Tov Xoiirov ■)(jp6vov, KotX TOVTCov TO Xayov iiipos 
^ovXeveiv, velfiai de koI tovs aAAouy irpos rrju 
Xrj^iv eKaa-Trjv. tow S" e/carov avSpas Siaveifiai 
tr0ay re avTovs Koi Toi/s aXXovs TCTTupa fJieprj as 
laaLTaTa kol SLaKXrjpaaai, kol ety iviavTOU {/Sou- 
Xevciv}. fiovXeveiu 8e y av doKrj avTols apurTa 
e^eiu Trepl Te tcov xprjp.a.Tcov, OTrtoy au (raia y koL ely 
TO Seou auaXiaKrjTaL, Kal irepl tcou aXXcov d>s av 
SvvcovTaL apLCTTa' kolv ti diXaxriv ^ovXevaacrOaL 
fi€Ta irXeiovav, eTreicTKaXelv eKaaTou iTrelaKXrjTOv ov 
av fdeXy Tav e/c ttjs avTrjs "^XiKias" ray 5' eSpaf 
TTOie'iv Trjs ^ovXijs Kara 7r€vdr]p,€pov iav firj BecovTUt, 
irXeiovcov. KXrjpovv Se ttjv ^ovXrjv tovs ivvea ap^ov- 
Tas, Tas 8e ^ctpoTovias KpLveiv TreVre tovs Xa^ovTas 
CK Trjs fiovXrjs, Kal ex tovtcov eva KXrjpovadaL KaO' 
eKao-TTjv rjpiepav tov e'iru^r](j>iovvTa. KXrjpovv 8e 
Tovs Xa^ovTas irevTe tovs ideXovTas irpoaeXdelv 
ivavTiov Trjs ^ovXrjs, irpwTOv p.ev lepav, SevTCpov 8e 

eKOTov avSpas) and from certain others, in whom we may see the 300 
co-opted members of the original Four Hundred mentioned by Thucy- 
dides (VIII. 67), and these were to be divided into four equal parts to 
make the first four councils. That the councils were to consist of 100 
members each appears from ch. 31, sub fin., where it is said that the 
original 400 were to be divided into ras Terrapas \rj^eis. 

^ovKevciv : MS. 8ov\eveiv, 

els iviavTov ^ovXeieiv : ^ovXeveiv is not in the MS., but it seems 
necessary to supply it, and its recurrence as the first word of the 
following sentence is enough to explain its omission. 

Kav : MS. eav, but a copula seems necessary. 

iireicniKrjTov : MS. eTTeicre<Kr]Tov. The word is unknown to the 
lexicographers, but so also is iireia-KoKeiv. 

nevBtjuepov : MS. wevdrminepov. The meaning must be ' once every 
five days.' The /SouXij under the democracy sat every day except on 
festivals {n\^v iav ns d<f>e(np.os 5, ch. 43). 

Upmv . . Krjpv^iv , . wp((r^eia , , tSiv aWav : the change of case is 
remarkable, though a koto aiveariv construction might be made out for 


K-qpv^Lv, rpiTOv TrpeajSeia, Teraprov tcov aXXav' ra 

Se Tov TToXip^ov orau bey aKXrjpcorl irpocrayayovTas 

Tovs (TTpaTTjyovs ■)(^p'r]ixaTL^e(TdaL. tov 8e fxrj loura eis 

TO fiovXevT-qpLOv T&v l3ovXev6vTa)v ttjv copav ttjv 

irpopp-qOetaav 6(j)eiXeiu bpa^p-rjv ttjs r}p.€pas eKaaTrjs, 

iav p-t) €vpL(TK6p,euos a(j)eaLv ttjs ^ovXrjs a.Trfj. 

[Col. 13.] 21. TavTTjv p-ev odu eiy tou pLeXXovTa ^ovov 

aviypa^av ttjv iroXiTiiav, iv 5e r<^ irapovTL Katpm 

Tr}v8e' fiovXeveiv p.ev TeTpaKoaiovs Kara ra iraTpLa, 

TeTTapoLKovTa i^ eKo.cTT'qs (j)vXrJ9, eV irpoKpLTCov [o]i;y 

av eXcovTai oi (pvXeraL t&v virep TpiaKovTa €TT] 

each. The order of business is probably that usually adopted in the 
(SouA?) under the democracy. In the ecclesia, as appears from ch. 43, 
different subjects were assigned to each of the four ordinary meetings 
of that body in each prytany. 

31. Tairriv fiev ovv : the handwriting of the MS. changes here, and the 
new hand continues as far as the middle of the 20th column. This hand 
is a much larger uncial than the first, and not semi-cussive, as that is 
{vt'd. Introduction) ; it is clearly the hand of a scribe, though a somewhat 
uneducated one. Mistakes, which have hitherto been rare, become 
not unfrequent, and several forms of mis-spelling are chronic. As it 
would be tedious to note each case as it occurs the chief classes of 
them may be mentioned here. The single letter i often takes the place 
of the diphthong ei, especially in the preposition els ; e.£^. laiovra, itKiov, 
i\r))^viav. On the other hand ft appears for t, as in TroKeiriKav, fiera- 
Kciveiv. The 1 ascript is often omitted, and v appears instead of 7 
before y and k. These mis-spellings, as well as the actual mistakes 
which occur from time to time, are generally corrected in the hand of 
the writer of the first part of the MS. ; and it seems probable, as 
suggested in the Introduction, that the first part was written by a 
scholar who desired to possess a copy of Aristotle's work, while the 
second part was copied by a scribe under his revision. Finally it may 
be noticed that there are no abbreviations in this hand, and that the 
columns are much narrower. Blunders of the scribe which are cor- 
rected by the reviser are not mentioned in the notes, any more than 
the habitual mis-spellings above mentioned. 

KOTa TO. TrnVfJiu : 2. e, as in the Solonian constitution. 

oils hi fAmirai ot (^uXe'rai ; this differs from Thucydides, who says 
(VIII. 67) that the Four Hundred were elected by a process of 
co-optation ; five irp6e8pot, elected by the ecclesia at Colonus, were to 


yeyovoTbiv. tovtovs 8e ras re a/j^ay KaracrTrjcrai, 
Kol irepl Tov opKov ovTLva ^PV Ofioaai ypa-^ai, {kcu) 
Trepl Ta)v vofuov /cat raz/ eu^i>[i']©i/ /cat rmu aXXcov 
irpaTTUv y av r^yavTai \crvpi\<l)^peLV. toIs 8e vop-ois 
OL eav reOaxriu Trepl rmv TroXiTiKau ■)(pTJa6at, /cat 
jjbrj e^elvat ixeraKLvelv p-rfS" eripovs deaOai. r5>v 
8e (TTpaTrjyav to vvv eivat ttjv (upecriv ef airavTcov 
TTOieicrdaL rav ■ir€VTaKLa")(iXL(av, ttjv 8e fiovX^v 
iweLdau KaracrTrjarj iroL'^a'aaav i^eracnv oirXois 
eXea-dai 5e/ca avSpay /cat ypap.p.aTta tovtois, tow 
8e alpeOevras ap\ii,v tov eiaiovTa eviavTov avTO- 
KpaTopas, KOL av tl 8e(ovTai avp^ovXeveaOai /iera 
Trjs ^ovXrjs. iXeadaL 8e kol L-jnrap^ov eva /cat 
(j)vXap)(^ovs SeKa' to 8e Xouirov ttjv atpeaiv iroLeladai 
TOVTtov TTjv ^ovXrjv KUTu Ta yeypapp.eva. Ta>v 8' 
aXX(ov dp^mv ttXtjv Trjs fiovXrjy /cat Tmv (TTpaTrjymv 
p,rj i^elvai p.r]Te tovtois pr/re aXXco p.r]8ev\ irXelov rj 

choose a hundred persons, who were each to nominate three others. It 
is difficult to decide between two such good authorities ; but possibly 
Thucydides may have taken the arrangement of the four councils by 
the original hundred commissioners (see note on ch. 30, ^avKas be 
k.tX.) to be a co-optation of three hundred additional members, whereas 
from Aristotle we should gather that the tribes elected the whole four 
hundred, or rather that they elected three hundred in addition to the 
hundred already existing, and that those hundred were eventually to 
distribute themselves and the remaining three hundred into four 
separate councils, — an arrangement which never came into force, 
owing to the overthrow of the oligarchical government. 

KOI TrepiT&vvonaiv : Kai is not in the MS., but it seems to be required, 
and its omission is easily explained by the similarity of the termination 
of ypdijfai, which precedes it. 

anrapxov 'dva : ordinarily there were two hipparchs {cf. ch. 61). 

TO 8e XoiTTOV : MS. TO 8f TO XoiTTOI/. 

irXriv : MS. rrpiv ; cf. ch. 37, where the same mistake is made, but 
has been corrected by the reviser, while in ch. 38 it again occurs 


ttTraf ap^ai rrjv avrrjv a.pxvi'' ety 5e tov aXXou 
Xpovou iva vefir]6a)(riv oi rerpaKoaioi els ray rer- 
Tupas Xrj^eis *0Tav rots aaTois yiyvrjTai fiera tcov 
aXXcou fiovXeveiv SLaveLfiavTcov avTOvs oi eKarou 

32. Ot p.€v olv €KaTov ol vTTO tS>v TTevTaKia^L- 
Xicov aipedevres ravr-qv aviypar^av ttjv TroXireiau. 


yln](f)La-avTos 'Api(rTop,a^ov, rj fiev ^ovXrj iw). KaXXtov 
irplv Bia^ovXeva-ai KareXudr} pirjvos QapyrjXiwvos 
TerpaSi eVt BeKa, oi Se TeTpaKoaiot ela-yaav ivarrj 
(J)6lvovtos QapyrjXicovos' eSet 8e ttjv elXrj^vlav tw 
Kvapxo ^ovXrjv elaiei/aL 8 iirl Seku ^KLpo^opiwvos. 
Tj pev ovv oXiyap^la tovtov KarecTTrj tov rpoirov 
eVt KaAAiou ap\ovT09, eTecnv 8' varepov ttjs 
tS>v Tvpdvvcov eK^oXrjs paXicTTa eKarov, aiTLCov 
pdXia-Ta yevopivcDv Ileicrav8pov Koi 'AuTi(f)avT09 

orav K.T.X. : this sentence is manifestly corrupt, but it is not clear 
how it is to be satisfactorily emended. That the revision by the 
original owner was not quite thorough is shown by the fact that 
though be has corrected two blunders in this passage (i/yviji-ai and 
hiavijiavToiv) he has allowed the last word to stand as avSSpeis. The 
ixarbv avSpes referred to are the hundred constitution-makers, and 
there is clearly a reference to their distribution of the Four Hundred 
into the four councils of one hundred which were to succeed them. 

32. nrjvot BapyrjXiSivos TfTpdSi eVi dcKa : this, as appears from what 
follows, was exactly a month before the completion of the Council's 
year of office, Thargelion (May) being the month immediately pre- 
ceding Scirophorion (June), which was the last of the Athenian civil 
year. Callias' year of office began in July 412 B.C., and was now 
within a month of its termination. 

elcfjaav : MS. fitrijiercav, 

tSei ; MS. €ri. 

Ilf io-di/8pou : MS. UcTta-avSpov. An E is added above the line, but it is 
not clear whether it is intended to be substituted for the cr (which 
would be better effected by simply striking out the t) or if it is to be 


Koi Qrjpafxeuovs, av8pa>v kcu yeyevrjfjLevcov ev Koi 
avueaei koi ypcofirj Sokovvtcou 8La(p€peiv. yepofievrjs [Col. 14.] 
fie TavT-qs rrjs TToAireiay 01 fJLeu irevTaKLa^iXiot A070) 
p-ovov ypedrjaav, oi fie rerpaKocnoi fiera rmv deKa 
Tmv avTOKparopcov elaeXOovTe^ ely to fiovXevrrjpiov 
rjpxov TTJ9 TToXeas, koI irpos KaKeBaip-oviovs irpea^ 
^ev(rap,euoL KareXvovTO tov TroXe/iov i(j) oils eKarepot 
Tvy)(a.vov(riv e\ovT€s. ov^ inraKovfa-ajvTcov 8' eKeivcov 
el fiTf Koi TT]v ap')(rjv rrjs [OjaXdTTijs a<pr](rov(rLV, 
ovToos airiaTrjaav . 

33. yirjvas fxev ovv 'lacos rerrapas Siefieivev rj 
tS)v TeTpaKocricov TroXiTeia, kcu -^p^ev i^ avrav 

inserted before the i. The enumeration of these three leaders is 
parallel with that in Thucydides (VIII. 68), but the latter names 
Phrynichus instead of Theramenes ; and to judge from the general 
character of Theramenes it is probable that he was not so much an 
originator of this revolution as one of the first to recognise that it was 
impending and to adapt himself to it so as to secure for himself a 
prominent position under the new regime. 

fipe&r)(Tav : this word is written twice in the MS., but the repetition is 
cancelled by a row of dots above it. In the first instance it has been 
corrected in the scribe's own hand, quite unnecessarily, to eprjdrjaav. 

oi : MS. u. 

rav SeKo rav avTOKparopav : the generals mentioned in the preceding 

Tvyxavrnxriv : two superfluous letters, apparently \e or re, have got 
inserted in the MS. before the Xj where the word is broken by the end 
of a line. 

vwoKovtravToav : MS. v<f>aKov<ravTa>v, 

33. Mijvas . . . TiTTapas : the Four Hundred came into power rather 
less than two months before the end of the archonship of Callias, and 
their rule consequently extended over rather more than two months of 
the following year (May-Sept. 411 B.C.). Mnasilochus was the archon 
eponymus of their election ; but Theopompus being elected on the 
re-establishment of the democracy the year was subsequently known by 
his name. Harpocration {s. v. TerpaKoaioi) refers to Aristotle's 'KOrjvaiav 
noKiTua as his authority for the duration of the rule of the Four 
Hundred (Rose, Frag. 372). 


Mvaa-iXoxos Sifjirjvop eVt QeoTrofnrov ap^ovTOS, 
<o?> rip^i Tovs einXouirovs SeKU fJLrjvas. rjfTTjOeuTes 
8e 7-J7 Trepl '^perpiau vavfiaxia [/cat] T-qs ^v/Soias 
arroa-Tacnqs oXtjs ttXtjv 'Qpeov, ^aXeiraf eveyKovres 
eVt ry crvp.(j)op5. fiaXicTTa tS>v irpoyeyev'qp.evcov {irXeuo 
yap e'/c rrfs YiV^oias rj ttjs 'Attiktjs irvyxavov 
Q}(p€Xovp,€voi) KareXvaav tow TerpaKoa-Lovs /cat ra 
TTpdyfiara irapeScoKav toIs irevraKLcrxiXiois toIs e/c 
Twv oirX(ov, y\rr^(f)L(Tap.evoL fir]8ep.Lau ap\r}v eivai 
fiicrdo^opcov. alruoTaTOL 8' iyevovTO ttjs Kara- 
Aucrewy 'ApLo-TOKpaTrjs /cat Qr]pap,€UT]f, ov avvape- 
uKop-ivoi Tols VTTO tS)v TeTpaKOCTLcov yevop.evoLs' 
airavra yap 8i avrciv eirparTov, ov8€v eirava- 
(hepovres tols Tr€VTaKL(ryj.Xiois . Sokovctl 8e KaXcos 
TToXiTevdrjvaL /cara tovtovs tovs Katpovs, TroXep-ov re 
KaOecTToaTos /cat e/c tSiv ottXcov ttjs TroXtreta? ovcttjs. 

34. Tovtovs p-^v odu a(j)eiX€T0 ttju iroXiTeiav 6 
8rjp,os Sia Toixovs' eTei 5' e^ p,eTa ttjv twv 

MyocriXoxos : originally written yiva(n\i.axos in the MS., but corrected. 
Mnasilochus or Mnesilochus is probably the same as the person of that 
name who was subsequently a member of the Thirty (Xen. Hell. II. 3. 2). 

OS : the insertion of this word seems necessary, and its omission is 
easily explained by the similarity of the termination of the preceding 
word, afnovToi. 

'Qpeov : MS. ilpiov, 

'ApKTTOKpaTrjS Koi Qj)paplvi]i : cf. Thuc. VIII. 89. 

hoKovfTi be KaKws TroKtT€v6i}vai Kara tovtovs tovs Katpovs ' this must 
undoubtedly be an intentional repetition of the comment of Thucydides 
(VIII. 97) in which the same judgment is expressed at greater length. 

34. 8ia Tumour : as has been suggested in the Introduction, this phrase 
probably indicates that the aboHtion of the government by the nominal 
Five Thousand, and the re-establishment of the full democracy, took 
place after the victory of Cyzicus in 410 B. C, which both restored the 
confidence of the people and allowed the fleet, the embodiment of the 
most advanced democratic sentiments of the time, to return to Athens. 

erei (MS. exi) 8' e/3S(i/itp : this must be a mistake. The archonship of 


TeTpaKOcrL(ov KaraXvaLv, eVt KaAAtou tov 'Ayye- 
X-qOev ap-)(pvTOS, yevofiivqs Trjs eV ' KpyivoixraLS 
vavfia^ia^, irpwrov fiev tovs deKa a-TpaTrj-yovs tovs 
rfj vavp-ayta vLKWuras crvvefir} Kpidrjvai paa X'^'-P^' 
TOVLO. iravras, tovs p,ev ov8e avvvavpa^^crauTas, 
TOVS d' iir dXXoTpLas vews crcodevTas, i^aTraTTjdevTOS 
TOV Srjpov 8ia tovs irapopyiaavTas' eireiTa fiovXo- 
p.€vcov AaKeSaipovLcou Ik AeKcXelas avievaL kcu e0' 
ols ^xpvcriv eKUTepot elprjvrjv ayeLV, evict, p,ev icnrov- 
Sa^ou, TO 8e irXrjdos ov^ VTrrjKovcrev i^airaTrjOevTes [Co'' 15] 

Theopompus, in which the Four Hundred were overthrown, was in 41 1- 
410 B. C, and the archonship of CaUias in 406-405 B. c. The latter was 
therefore in the sixth year after the dissolution of the Four Hundred, 
not the seventh. The calculation was probably made by inadvertence 
from the establishment of the Four Hundred, which was in the ofiScial 
year 412-41 1 B.C. 

TOVS hixa a-TpaTT/yavs : Aristotle is certainly inaccurate here. Two of 
the ten generals, Conon and Leon, were not included in the accusation, 
the former having been blockaded in Mytilene during the battle, while 
of the latter we hearnothing in connection with either the battle or the 
trial. Of the remaining eight two, Protomachus and Aristogenes, 
declined to come to Athens to stand their trial ; and consequently 
only six of the whole ten were tried and executed. 

X^ipoTovia : the decision to try all the generals collectively was taken 
by ;(eiporoi/ia, but the actual vote which condemned them was by ballot 
(Xen. Hell. I. 7. 34). 

TOVS jxev ovSe avvvavfiaxritravTas : it is difficult to understand this, as 
Xenophon expressly names eight of the generals (all except Conon and , 

Leon) as having been present at the battle, and indicates their respec- 
tive positions in the Athenian line. Unless Leon was included in the 
accusation, of which there is no sign in any other authority, the state- 
ment of Aristotle seems to be an unwarranted exaggeration due to his 
evident dislike (or that of the authorities on whom he relied) of the 
proceedings in reference to the generals. His other statement, that 
some of the generals themselves had to be saved, instead of being in 
a position to save others, is possible enough. 

Toiis 8' eV dXXorpiay : MS. omits 8f . 

e^airaTrjBevTos : MS. e^aTraTrjSevTes. 

cieaTipoi flprjvriv: MS. tprjvrjv cKaTfpoi, an inversion which is more 
likely to be due to the scribe than to the author. 


VTTO KXeo(j)aivTOS, os eKcoXvae yeviadai Trjv elprjvrju 
eXdcou els rrjv eKKXrjcrlav fxeOvcov kol daspaKa evoe- 
SvKcos, ov (pdaKcov iTnTpeyjreii' iav p^rj rracras a^uoa-L . 
AaKe8atp.6vioL ray TroXeis. ov ■)((aprjaap.€V0L oe 
KaXw Tore tols irpaypa^aij, p-er ov ttoXvu yjiovov 
eyvcoaav ttjv apap^riav^. t(S yap varepov erei 
eV 'AXe^lov apypvros r)Tv\r}(rav T-qv ev Aiyos 
TTorapoLS vavpaxic-v, i^ ys avvefir) Kvpiov yevop-evov 
TTjS TToXecos AvcravBpov Karaa-TrjaaL tovs rpiaKovra 
TpoTTCo TOLcoSe. Trfs elprjvrjs yevopeviqs avTols e^ 
ro re TroXiTevcrovTat ttjv irarpLov TroXLveiav, ol peu 

VTTO 'KXeo(l)S>vTos : this passage is cited by the scholiast on Aristophanes 
(Frogs, 1532), as 'Apio-TOTcXijs </>'J0'', /icTO rrjv iv ' Apyivova-ais vavfui)({.av 
AaKeSmnoviav ^ovKo/jiivav e'k AeKfXelas diriivai e<p ois e;^ou(rii' eKarepoi Kai 
elprjvriv ayeiv, iiri Tov KaXXi'ou, K\eo(f>S)V e7rei<re tok S^/ioi/ fifj jrpoaSi^aadal 
iX6av els rfju eKK\rjcriav fieBvav koX 6a>paKa ei>beSvKuis, ov <pda-Ka>v eTTiTpii^eiv 
iav fi.f1 ndcras d(l>S>(n ras irokfis oi ^.aKebaifiovioi (Rose, Frag. SJo). Grote 
doubts the truth of this application for peace by the Lacedaemonians, 
believing the story to be a confusion with the proposals which Diodorus 
states to have been made after the battle of Cyzicus. But it is by no 
means improbable that the Lacedaemonians should have been willing 
to propose a peace after so severe a defeat as Arginusae, — a defeat 
irreparable except through the help of Persia, which they did not at the 
time possess ; especially as peace on the terms proposed would leave 
Athens stripped of nearly the whole of her maritime empire. Neither 
Xenophon nor Diodorus mentions any negotiations at this time ; but 
Xenophon does not mention any after Cyzicus either. Grote suspected 
the scholiast to have mis-quoted Aristotle, but the case is altered by 
the discovery of the complete text of the latter ; and if there is any 
confusion as to the real date of the Lacedaemonian proposals, it is 
more likely to be on the part of Diodorus than of Aristotle. 

(TT 'AXe^LOV apjfOVTOs : 405-404 B. C. 

Tj)v ndrpiov TroKirelav : this was a sufficiently vague term, indicating 
generally the constitution of Solon; but as the virtue of the constitution 
depended on its working, it was possible for moderate democrats, 
extreme oligarchs, and moderate aristocrats alike to hope that it would 
be modelled according to their views. Diodorus (XIV. 3) describes 
the arguments of the opposing parties at some length, and says that the 
point was decided by Lysander declaring for an oligarchy. 


SrjfiOTLKOL 8iacrco(T€LV iireipcovTO tov Srjixov, rati' de 
yvcopifMcov ol fX€v iv raty iraipelais oures Kal rcov 
fpvyaBcov ol jxera ttju elpiqvqv KareXOovres 6Xiyap)(^Las 
eTredvfiovv, ol 8' eV eTaipela. p,ev ov8ep,ia. crvyKade- 
<TTC0T€s [aJAAcoy Se SoKovvTes ouSevos iinXeLTrea-dat 
Toiv TToXirmv ttjv Trarpiov iroXiTeiav i^riTovv &v rfv 
fieu Kol 'Ap\Lvos Ka\ ' Auvros kol K.XeLTO(f)cov /cat 
^opfiicTLOs KOI erepoi. ttoXXol, TrpoeiaTr] 8e p-dXiara 
Qr}pap.ivrjs. Avaav8pov 8e Trpocrdefjievov tols oXl- 
yap-^iKols KarairXayeis 6 5^/Aoy rjvayKaa-Or) •)(eipo- 
Tovelv TTjv oXiyap^lau. eypayjre 8e to ^T^(f)iafJia 
ApaKOUTLSrjs 'A<pL8valos. 

35- Ot Mf o5^ rpiaKovra tovtov tov Tpoirov 
KaTeaTTjaav iir). HvOoScopov a.p\ovTOs. yevop-evoi 8e 
KvpiOL TTJs TToAecBy TO. p.€v ccXXa TO, 86^avTa irepl 
T.rjs TToAtretay Trapecopcov, irevTaKoaLOvs 8e /SovAeuray 
Koi Tas aXXas ap^as KaTaaTrjcravTes e'/c irpoKpLTWv 
e/c Tcav -)(i.Xlcov, kcu TrpoaeXojxevoL a(f)L(Tiv avTols tov 

Stcuraxrciv : so corrected by the reviser from Siao-ajfEiv. 

'Apxivos : subsequently one of the exiles who joined Thrasybulus in 
his occupation of Phyle (Demosth. contr. Timocr. p. 742) ; cf. ch. 40. 
Anytus (MS. Awuroy) was another of the same number (Xen. Hell. II. 
3. 44). Cleitophon (MS. K\iTo0a)i/) may be the same as the person of 
that name mentioned in connection with the establishment of the Four 

ApoKoj/TtSijs : Dracontides is mentioned by Aristophanes ( Wasps, 157), 
where the scholiast refers to the present passage of Aristotle (Rose, 
Frag. ZTi)- He was himself one of the Thirty (Xen. Hell. II. 3. 2). 

35. Ka.rkaTr\aav: MS. KareaTrjcre, 

inX UvBoSapov apxovTos : the year 404-403 b. C. ; but the name of 
Pythodorus was subsequently expunged from the records, and the year 
was known as the year of Anarchy. 

cK tS>v p^iXio)!/ : there is no other mention of a body of 1000, and it is 
possible that the phrase is merely epexegetic of f k irpoKpiTov, indicating 
that a list of 1000 persons was at first drawn up from which the 500 
members of the council were finally selected. 


Heipaucos apxovras SeKa kcu tov 8€crficoTr]pi.ov 
(f)vXaKas €v8€Ka Koi ixa(rTiyo(f)6povs Tpia\^KJo(novs 
virrjpeTas Karet^ov ttjv woXlv 8i eavrcov. to p-ev 
ovv irparov p-erpcoi toIs TroXiVaty [^Jo'a[i'J Kai 
TrpoaeTroLovvTO diotKeiv rrjv Trdrpiov 7ro\XiTj€Lav, 


Tovs Trepl Ta>v ' KpeoirayLTatv KadeiXov eg 'Apeiov 
[Trdyovj kcu toov "EoXcovos Oecrp-cav oaoi 8Lap,(j)i(r- 
^r)T[ri(rjet.? elxov, kcu to Kvpos o rjv ev toIs 8LKaaTaLS 
Ac[a7-e]A.i;crai', as iyravopdovvTes kcu iroLovvT^es] dvafi- 
[Col. i6.] ^icrl3rjTrjT0P ttjv iroXiTeiav, oIo[j/] 7rep\ tov 8ovvai 
TO. eavTov « au ediXrj Kvpiop woLTjaavTes KaOaira^, 

KOI 'Apxfo-TpaTov : there appears to be no mention elsewhere of these 
laws affecting the Areopagus, but probably Archestratus was one of the 
supporters of Ephialtes and some of the laws curtailing the power of 
the Areopagus stood in his name. 

Sra/i0io-/3i;T^o-6(E: MS. 8ia/i<^if^i;ri;treis, but this substitution of f for a 
is paralleled immediately below, where the MS. has avaiJKpiC^rjTrjrov. 

TO Kvpos o rjv iv Tois SiKaarals : this has been mentioned above (ch. 9) 
as the foundation of the whole power of the democracy, and it is there- 
fore natural that it should be one of the first things abolished by the 

irepl TOV dovvat to iavTov k.t.X. : the law of Solon relative to testa- 
mentary dispositions made it lawful for a man who had no legitimate 
children to dispose of his property in whatever way he chose, provided 
that he was of sound mind at the time and was not subject to undue 
influence. It is mentioned by Plutarch {So/. 21) and is repeatedly 
referred to by the orators {e.g: Demosthenes in Lept. p. 488, contr. 
Olymp. p. 1183 ; Isaeus, de Menecl. hered., passim, de Philoct. hered. 
p. 57). The change introduced by the oligarchs simply consisted in 
abolishing the provisions against mental incapacity and undue in- 
fluence, which, though reasonable enough in themselves, had been 
abused and had given rise to much <rvKo4>avria. An instance of this 
may be found in the case of the will of Menecles on which Isaeus 
composed the speech mentioned above. It is clear that this is the 
meaning of the sentence, and not that the oligarchs removed all 
restrictions on testamentary dispositions except those relating to 
mental incapacity and undue influence, partly because Aristotle could 
not speak of so revolutionary a change in the law of property as merely 


Tag 5e irpoa-ova-as 8v<TKoXias, eau fir/ fiavmv rj 
yrjpwv 7] yvvaiKL TnOojxevos, a(pelXov ottco^ jxr] y toIs 
avKo^avrais €(f)o8os' bfioicas 8e tovt eSpcov koL eVt 
Tcov aXXcov. KUT ap)(as fi€v ovv ravT iiroiovv kcu 
Tovs a-vKo<f)avTas KcCi tovs t^ ^rjpxo irpos \apLv 
ofxiXovvras irapa to ^IXtlcttov koll KaKoirpdypLOva? 
bvTas KCU irovrjpovs avypovv, €0' ols eyaipov rj itoXls 
yiyvofxevoLS, rjyovfievoL tov ^eXriaTov \dpiv irotelv 
avTovs. €7rei 5e riju ttoXlv iyKparda-Tepoi/ ecrxov, 
ovSeifo? dTrei^ovTO Ta>v iroXircou, dXX' aTreKreivau 
TOVS Koi TOLs ovcriais koL rca yivei kcu toIs d^ia>p.a(nv 
irpoexovras, VTre^aipov/xevoL re tov ^ofiou kcCI 
^ovXo/ieuoi. Tas ovcrias SiapTrd^eiv kcu xpovov 
oiaTrecrouTos fipa^eos ovk IXolttovs dvrjprjKeaav r/ 
^tXiouy wevTaKocriovs. 

36. OvTCos 5e Trjs TToXeays vTro<p€pop.ivr)s Qrjpa- 
/JLevrjs ayavaKTmv eVt tols yLvop.4voLS ttjs fiev 
dcreXyeias avTols iraprjvei iravcraa-Oai, fjueTaSovvai 8e 
TCOV Trpayp.aTcav tois ^eXTLCTTOLS. ol fie irpcoTov 
evavTioodevTes, eTret SLeaTraprjcrav ot Xoyoi irpos to 
irXrjdos Kou rrpos tov Qrjpafievr}v oiKelcos el^ov ol 
TToXXoi, (j>ofir]devT€s firj TrpocTTaTrjs' yevop-evos tov 
8r]p,ov KaToXvcrrj ttjv 8vvacrT€Lav KUTaXeyovaiv tcov 

an amendment to remove certain difficulties or obscurities, and partly 
because it does not appear how such an alteration would have limited 
the opportunities of the a-vKofjjdvrt]!. The law which required a man 
who had legitimate children to leave the bulk of his property among 
them remained intact ; and it is clear from the allusions in the orators 
that even the amendment which the oligarchs actually introduced was 
repealed when the democracy was re-established. 

■ virf^aipoiiievoL re tov (j)6fiov : i. e. removing their own apprehensions, 
by destroying those whom they had most reason to fear. 
36. npoTov : MS. irpatTOi. 


TToXiTav Sia-xiXiovs ms fieTaScoarouTes rrjs iroXiTeLas. 
Qrjpafxivrjs 8e irakiv iTnrifia Kol tovtols, irpStTOV 
IjL€v otl fiovXo/JieuoL fMeradovvai Tols iiriecKeaL TpLcr- 
■)(lXlols fi6voi9 ixeTaSiSoaa-i, my eV tovtco tS TrXydei 
TTJf ap€Trjs Q)pi(rp,evrjf, eVet^' otl 8vo ra ivavTLCoTara 
TTQLOvaLv, fiiaLov re rrjv ap^rjv kcu rav ap^ofievcov 
rJTTCo KaracrKevd^ovTes. ol 8e tovtcop p.ev wXiymprj- 
aav, Tov. 8e KaraXoyov t&v rpLO-xiXicov ttoXvv p,€v 
Xpovov v7repel3dXXouTO kol Trap' avTols i(j)vXaTTOV 
Tovs iyvcoa-fxevovf, ore 8e kcu 86^eieu avToh iK(f)epeLU 
TOW p.ev i^rjXeKpou t5>v yeypap-fievcov, Tom 8' 
dvt€veypa(l)ov Tap e^codev. 

37. ''il8r] 8e TOV )(eifji.covos ivea-TaTos, KaTuXa- 
ISouTOf Qpacrv^ovXov fxeTO, tcov <f)vya8cov i^vXrjv, 
Koi KaTct TTjv (TTpaTidu rjv i^rjyayov oi TpiaKOVTa 
KaKcos diroxi^prjcravTes, eyvcoaav rav [xev aXXcov Ta 

fiio-xiXi'oiJS : so the MS., but this must be a mere clerical bkmder for 
rpia-xi-^l-ovs, unless we are to consider the 2000 an addition to the body of 
1000 named in ch. 35. That, however, is hardly probable, as Aristotle 
would almost certainly have explained it if it had been the case, 
instead of immediately going on to speak of the force as 3000 in 

npSiTov jih (t.T.X. : cf. Xen. Hell. II. 3. 19, which contains the sub- 
stance of the same criticisms and almost the same words. The latter 
pari is indeed an almost verbal quotation from Theramenes, whose 
words are given by Xenophon, 6pS) tyayye bio rj/ias ra ivavnarara 
TTpdrrovTas, ^laiav re Trjv a,pxr]v Kai rJTTOva tSsv ap^^ofievau KaracrKeva^oiievovs. 
The last word confirms the reading Karaa-Kfvd^ovTes here, which is the 
correction of the reviser for the /ierawKEurifoi'«s of the scribe. 

37. syvaaav k.tX. : this somewhat alters the order of events as we 
gather it from Xenophon. The latter first narrates the disarming of 
the people and the execution of Theramenes, and then says that after 
this {i< fi« TovTov, 11. 4. 2) Thrasybulus made his descent on Phyle. 
According to Aristotle the disarmament and the execution of Thera- 
menes were in consequence of the advance and first success of 
Thrasybulus. There is time in the chronology of the period for 
either order of events ; the only difference is that we must allow a 


OTrXa Tra/jeXeV^at, Qrfpafievijv 8e 8ia(pdetpat rovSe 
TpoTTOV. vofiovs elcTTjueyKau els rrjv ^ovXrjv 8vo 
KeXevovres eTri^eipoToveiv, av jxev ely avroKparopas [Col. 17. 
eiroieL tovs TpiaKovra tS>v ttoXitcov diroKTe'Lvai tovs 
py] Tov KaraXoyov perixovras rav Tpi(r')(LXLa>v, 6 5' 
erepos CKCoXve Koiucoveiv rrjs Trapovarjs TroXiretay 
oaoL Tvy)(avov(rLV to iv 'Hertcuj/e/a reL^os Kara- 
(TKo^avTes 7] Tols TerpaKoaiois evavriov tl TTpd^avT€s 
T] Tols KaTa<TKev(racri Tr]v irpoTepav oXiyapylav w[i'] 

longer time for the stay of Thrasybulus at Phyle than is usually griven 
in the histories. In this there is, however, no difficulty, especially as we 
know that the forces of the exiles grew from seventy to 1000 before they 
began their march from Phyle to Athens. They probably remained 
for two or three of the winter months at Phyle and then advanced. 
The date of the occupation of Munychia can be fixed within narrow 
limits from the speech of Cleocritus the herald after the fight in which 
Critias was killed (Xen. Hell. II. 4. 3i), where he says that the Thirty 
had killed in eight months almost more than the Peloponnesians in ten 
years. Athens surrendered on the i6th of Munychion (April), and 
the Thirty were probably established about the beginning of the 
following month. Eight full months would bring us to Gamelion 
(January), about which point we may place the defeat of the Thirty at 
Munychia by Thrasybulus. The government of the Ten, which 
followed, and the intervention of the Spartans occupied several months 
more, and the democracy was restored about the following August, 
after sixteen months intermission. 

napeKcuBcu.: MS. irapua-Bai, and an e has been written in correction 
above the first «, the X being accidentally omitted. 

vofiovs ela-rfveyxav k.t.X. : as to the first of these two laws Aristotle 
agrees with Xenophon (Hell. II. 3. 51), but as to the second the two 
accounts differ fundamentally. If Aristotle is right as to the passing of 
the second law, the well-known dramatic scene depicted by Xenophon 
must disappear. At best it can only be supposed that Critias, instead 
of striking out the name of Theramenes from the list of the 3000, 
proposed the second law as described by Aristotle and forced it down 
the throat of the council by threat of armed force. This is possible, as 
the law is in itself so obviously aimed at Theramenes that it is difficult 
to suppose that he would have remained in Athens after seeing that it 
was likely to be passed ; but if it is the case the narrative of Xenophon 
will require so many alterations in detail as to show that it is largely 



Irvyyavev afi(j)OT€pcov KeKOLVcovrjKcos o Qrjpafieurjf, 
axTTe avve^aivev linKvpcoOevTcov twv vopxov e^co re 
yiyveaOai rrjs woXtTelas avrov Koi tovs rpiaKOura 
KVpLOVS eluai davarovvras. avaipeOivTOS 5e Qr/pa- 
p.4vovs TO, re oirXa TrapeiXovTO iravTCov 'irXr]v tiov 
Tpiaxi-Xlcou, Kol eV rois aXXoL? ttoXv irpos cop.6T7]Ta 
Kol irovrjpiav eireBoa-av. irpea^eis 7rip.-^avTes els 
AaKeSaifjLoua tov re Qrjpafievovs KUTTjyopovv kol 
fior)6elu avTols rj^lovV S>v aKovcravres ol AaKeSat.- 
p.6vL0L KoXXlISlov aireiTTeiXav ap/xoa-Trjv Kal crrpa- 
Tuoras toy eirTaKoaiovs, oX rrjv aKpoiroXiv eXdoures 

38. Mera 5e ravra KaraXa^oPTcop twv awo ^vXrjs 
TTiv yiovuv^LO-v KOL vLKrjaavT(ov p-axy tovs p-era tcov 
TpiaKovra fiorjOrjaavTas, iTravaxcopTja-avTes p-era ro[i'J 
KLvBvvov ol CK TOV acTTecos KOL (TvvadpoLadevT€s els 
T^p dyopap ry vcrTepala tovs p-ev TptaKovTa KaTe- 
Xvaav, alpovvTai 5e 8eKa twv ttoXltwv avTOKpaTopas 
eVi TT]v \tov 7ro]Ae)u.ou KaToXvaiv. ol 8e irapaXa- 

TO SwXa napflXovTo: Xenophon (II. 3. 20) represents this as having 
taken place before the death of Theramenes. 

KaWi^tov direa-TfiXav : this is in very marked contradiction to Xeno- 
phon, who places the sending of a Spartan garrison quite early in the 
rule of the Thirty. In this point Xenophon's account (with which 
Diodorus agrees, XIV. 4) seems more probable than that of Aristotle, 
as it would hardly have been possible for the Thirty to have carried on 
their Reign .of Terror without an armed force at their backs, whereas 
Aristotle represents it as having occurred while the whole body of 
Athenians was still in possession of weapons. 

38. avvaBpourBivres : apparently written a-vvaaopoia-BeiiTes in the MS. 

01 be TrapaKafiovTcs k.t.\. : Aristotle gives a fuller account than 
Xenophon of the proceedings of the Ten, which makes it easy to 
understand why they were eventually excluded from the amnesty (see 
ch. 39). As a matter of fact their rule extended over nearly half the 
total time occupied by the anarchy, Lysias {contr. Erqtosth. cc. 


fioures TT}v ap^^v iv oils jxev ype$r](rav ovk ^irparrov, 

e[7r/oeV/3eu](r[aj'] 5' els AaKeSatfjLova fioi^deiav fxera- 

Tre^fXTrofjijevoi /cat xPT^fiara Savei^ofxevoi. ^''^XeTrajy 

8e \(f)ejp6pTcov eVt tovtols Ta>v eV rij iroXiTeia, 

0o[/3ou)U,ej/]ot fj.^ KaraXvOaxTLV Trjs oip-)(ris kol jSouXd- 

p.evoi p.ev /car[a7rX^^]at rovs aXXovs {oirep iyevero), 

(TvXXa^ovTes . , 7]p.ap€T0u ovSevos ovra Sevrepou 

Ta>v TToXirau aireKTeivau, kol ra irpdyfiara ^efiaicos 

eixov, arvvaycovi^Ojxivov KaXXifilov re kol rmv IleAo- 

Trovvrjaicop rmv irapovTcov kol irpos tov^toiJs ivicov 

Tcov iu Tols linrevaL' tovtcov yap rives p-aXiorra tS>v 

TToXiTcov ecrirovBa^ov p.r] KareXOelv rovs oltto ^vXrjs. 

d>s S" ol Tov Ueipaiea kol ttju M.ovvv)(mv exovres 

airoaravTos iravros tov Sr]p.ov irpos avrrju eire- 

Kparovv tS iroXepxo, Tore KaraXvcravTes Toi/s deKU 

Tovs TrpcoTOvs alpeOevras, aXXovs etXovTO 8eKa 

Tovs ^eXricTTOvs eivai Sokovvtus, e(j) wv (rvvefirj 

KOL Tas StaXvcreis yeveaOai kcu KareXdelv tov 8rj- [Col. 18.] 

fiov, (rvvaycovi^op,ev(ov kol 7rpodvp.ovfievcov tovtcov. 

Trpoeio-TTjKecrav d' avTav p.aXicrTa 'Plvcov Te 6 

55-62) describes their proceedings in terms which fully confirm 
Aristotle, but he does not mention the second board of Ten which 
eventually put an end to the civil war (see below). 

ev oh : it may be suspected that the preposition should be ecj). 

davei^ofievot : MS. SaviCo/ievot. Saw'fm is a later form of bavei^m, and 
recurs twice in ch. 52 ; but the older spelling is preserved earlier in the 
MS., in chapters 6, 9, and 16. 

KaToKvBSxnv . . . /SouXo'^ei/oi : these words are written twice over in the 
MS. through inadvertence, but the repetition has been cancelled. 

oXXouy elKovTo dexa : Xenophon makes no mention of this second 
board of Ten, who were apparently members of the moderate aristo- 
cratical party. 

'Pivav; this person is mentioned incidentally by Isocrates {contr. 
Callim. c. 7, p. 372) as eis t&v hUa yevofievos, but Isocrates clearly 

H a 


Uaiavievs kol <^avXXos 6 'Ax^pSovs vtos' ovroi 
yap irp\vri Yiavaaviav t a.(f)CK€(rdai 8ie7rep^ovT\o 
irpos Tovs eV ITet/jatei, kou d^iKOfievov arvveairov- 
Bacrav rrjv Ka6o8ov. eVt irepas yap -qyaye Tr]v 
elpT^vrju /cat ras SiaXva-eis Ylav(ravMS 6 ratv AaKe- 
SatfiouLCov ^aaiXevs /xera rap 8eKa 8\^LaXjXaKTCou 
Ta>v vcTTepov a^LKOfievoov e/c AaKiBaifiovos, ovs 
avTOS ia-TTOvSaa-ev iXdeiu. ol ■ 8e 7re[jOi] top 'Vivcova 
Slo, re TTjv evvoiav rrjv eiy tov ^[tJ/xoi'J eiryveOrjaav, 
KOU Xa^6vT€s TT]v eTTifieXeiav iv oXiyapyla ras ev- 
Qxivas t8o(rav rfj 8r]fjL0KpaTia, kol ov8els iveKaXeae^v 
avJTOis ovre rmv iv aaret ixeivavToyv ovre tcov €K 
TleLpaieas KareXdovrcov, aAAa 8ia ravra /cat arpa- 
TTjyos €v0vs yp^Or] 'Pivcov. 

39. 'EyevovTO 8' at 8LaXvaeLS eir EvKXeL8ovs 
apxpvTOs Kara ras avvOrjKas rda-Se. Toiis fiovXo- 
pevovs rmv 'A6r]vaia>v iv dcrrei peivdvTcov i^otKelv 
e'x^iv 'EAeixriva iiriTLpovs ovras KoiX Kvpiovs /cat 
avTOKpdropas i\Tr\ Trday-v kol to. avrmv Kapirov- 
pivovs. TO S" lepov elvai koivov dfKJyoTepcov, eVt- 
peXeladat 8e ^rjpvKas kol ^vpoXirL8as Kara to. 
TTOLTpLa. pr] i^elvai 8e p-qre rots '^XevaLvoOev els 
TO dcTTV prjre Tols in tov acTTecos 'EXeutrtWSe iivai 
irXrjv pv(rT7]piois eKaTepovs. (rvvTeXeiv 8e aTro tS>v 

knows of only one board of Ten, as he refers to them just before as the 
successors of the Thirty {^pxpv h^" y"P "' S«« ol juera rous rpiaKovTa 

atpiKo/ifvov : MS. acfuKVOfievovs. 

tSiv fitKo SiaXKaKTciv : Xenophon {Hell. II. 4. 38) gives the number of 
Spartan commissioners as fifteen. 

39. fV EiKX«8oi)r apxovTos : i.e. late in the summer of 403 B.c^ 

ttXiji/ : MS. irpiv, a mistake also made elsewhere. 


Trpoa-iovTcov ely to (rvfifxa^iKov KudaTrep Toiis aXXovs 
' AdrjvaLovs . iau 8e riues tS>v airiovTOiv oIkmu 
Xa/jL^avaxriv 'EAeucrtvt, (rvfnrelOeiv tov KeKrrjfievop' 
eav 8e firj (TVixfiaivaxriv aXXrjXots Tifirjras iXeaOai 
Tpelf eKarepcov, /cat ■^vtlv av ovtol Ta,^oy(ri Tifx^v 
Xafji^dueiu. '^Xevaivicov 5e p-vvocKeiv ovs av ovtol 
^ovXcovTai. TTjv 5" a'7roypax^r]v eivai tols fiovXo- 
IxivoLS e^oiKeiv, tols /jlcv iTrL8[r)fji\ov<nu acf)' ^s av 
OfioacoaLV tovs opKovs 8l [eVrja iQp^epaiv, ttjv S" 
i^oLKTja-LV eiKoai, tols 5' airo8iqfxov(nv €7r€L8av eVi- 
8r]fir](r<o(TLv kutol TavTa. firj i^elvai 8e ap^eiv 
ixr]8efiiav ap^rjv tcov iv t^ aorei tov '^XevcrLvi 
KUTOLKOvvTa "TTpLV dTToypa^rjTai ttoXlv iv Tm aaTei 
KUTOLKeLV. Tas 8e 8iKas tov (f>6vov elvuL kutu tu [Col. 19.] 
iraTpLa, el tls tlvu avTO-)(€LpL {dTreKTOvev} eKTiaeL 
Upcoaas. TCOV 5e TrapeXrjXvdoTcov p.'q8ev\ irpos 
fi7]8eva p,vr]ariKaK€'lv i^e^vai, ttXtjv irpos tovs Tpid- 
KovTa /cat TOVS 8eKa xai tovs ev8eKa kcu tovs tov 
JJeipaLecos ap^avTas, fii]8e irpos tovtovs idv 8L8coaiv 
€v0vvas. evdvvas 8e SovvaL tovs fiev iv UeLpaLel 
ap^avTas iv tols iv Ueipaiei, tovs 8" iv Tm daTeL 

PovKavrai : MS. /SouXovrai. 

o/xocroxru' : MS. onoKTaxTiv, 

<j>6vov : corrected in the MS. from irovov, which of course was a mere 
blunder of the transcriber. 

avTOxfipi'. MS. avTo-xeipa, 

aircKTovfv : omitted in MS., but this or some similar word must be 

Koi roil fie'ica : Xenophon (Hen. II. 4. 38) does not name the Ten 
among the persons excluded from the amnesty, mentioning only the 
Thirty, the Eleven, and the Ten who had ruled in Piraeus. It is 
probably some confusion between the latter body and the successors 
of the Thirty in Athens that has caused the omission in Xenophon's 


eV T0L9 TO, Tifi^fiara 7rap€)(OfieuoLS. eld' o^tcos i^oiKeiv 
Tovs ideXovras. ra 8e j(/)^/Liara a iSavelcravro ety 
TOP TToXefiov eKarepovs airoSoduai ^oj/a/y. 

40. Tevofxevcov fie toiovtcov twv 8La\v<Tea)v, kul 
(f)o^ovfi€vcov o(roi fiera rav TpiaKovra (Twe-TroXe- 
firjaau, kcu iroXXav fiev eTrivoovvTcou e^otKclv ava- 
^aXXofiivcov fie ttjv dvaypa(f)riv els ray ea~)(aTas 
rip.epas, oirep elcoOaaiv iroieiu airavTes, 'Kpylvos 
o-vvlScoi' to ttXtjOos koX l3ovX6p.evos Karacrxelv av- 
Tovs ixpelXe ray viroXoLTrovs rifxepas ttJs a7roypa(f)rjs, 
aare avvavayKaadrjvat jxeveiv iroXXovs aKovras ecus 

iv rols Ta Tinrniara napexo/ifvois : this is the reading of the MS., but it 
appears to be corrupt. In the first place it seems necessary to insert 
iv T<S aa-rei after rois ; the omission of the phrase is easily explained by 
its occurrence almost immediately before. Whether further emenda- 
tion is necessary depends on the sense given to ra n/i^/iara jrapexoficvoir. 
If rifirjfia be taken in the sense of ' rateable valuation,' it may mean that 
the magistrates of Piraeus were to give account for all proceedings re- 
lating to persons or things rated in Piraeus, and the magistrates of the 
city for persons or things rated in the city. This gives a fair sense, 
but it is not clear how the eSdwa could in all cases be regulated 
according to a rateable valuation. On the other hand riiirifm may 
be taken in the sense of 'compensation' or 'penalty,' in which case 
irapexonevois must be altered to napexon^vovs, the sentence meaning that 
the magistrates of Piraeus were to suffer penalties (in case of any de- 
fault being found) for matters done in Piraeus, and the magistrates of 
the city similarly for affairs within the city. 

eiff ovras : this refers to the whole of the terms which have just been 
set forth as regulating the retirement to Eleusis of those who so desired. 
TOVS idiKovras : the MS. inserts a 8« after rour unnecessarily. 
40. 'hpxivos : this particular action of Archinus is not recorded else- 
where, but emphatic testimony is borne to his character by the orators. 
Isocrates (contr. Callim. c. 3, p. 371) speaks of a law of his to prevent 
crvKo^ama after the amnesty, of which his prosecution of a breach of 
the amnesty mentioned below appears to be the corollary; and 
Aeschines (contr. Ctes. p. 82) mentions him as having prosecuted 
Thrasybulus for an illegal proposition to crown one of his friends. 
He is also said by Suidas to have been the person who advised the 
adoption of the Ionic alphabet in public documents in the archonship 
of Eucleides. 


i0appr)(rau. koI 5o/cet tovto re iroXLTeva-aa-Oai 
KoKcos 'Ap)(lvos, Kcu fiera ravra ypa^a/xevos to 
y\rrj<l)urp,a to QpaavfiovXav irapavofiav, ev S fieTe- 
8180V TT]s TToAtreiay iraai Tols €k Ueipaiecos crvy- 
KaTeXOovcri, a>u evLOL (])avepms rjcrav SovXof koI 
TpiTou eVei TLS rjp^aTO t5>v KUTeXrjXvOoTcov fivrjai- 
KUKelv, dirayaycov tovtov eVi tttjv fiovXrjv kou ireiaas 
uKptTOV OLTTOKTeLvai, Xeycov OTi vvv SeL^oucriv el 
l3ovXoi>Tai TTjv 8rjfioKpaTiav crm^eLV Koi tois^ opKois 
efjifieuciv a(])€VTas fiev yap tovtov TrpoTpe^eiv Koi 
Tovs aXXovs, kav S" aveXcoacv Trapadeiyfia iroirjareLV 
airaxTLV. oirep kou (rvv€7re(rev airoOavovTos yap 
ovSeis TTtoTTore vcTTepov efivrja-iKaKTrjaev. dfia doKov- 
criu KaXXiaTa 8r} /cat TroXiTLKCoTaTa airavTcov KapSla 
/cat Koivy \pr](racr6aL Tals Trpoyeyevrjp-ivais crvficpo- 
pals' ou yap fxovov Tas Trepl tcov TrpoTepcov aiTias 
i^T^XeiyJAav aXXa /cat to, )(fiT^p.aTa AaKeSaifiovioi^, a 
01 TpiaKOVTa irpos tov iroXefiov kXa^ov, airiBoaav 
KOLvfi, KeXevovtrcou t5)V a-vvdiqKav eKarepovs airo- 
SiSovai ^((opls TOVS T e'/c tov acrTecos /cat tovs e'/c tov 
Ueipaiecos, i^yovfievoi tovto irpSiTOv ap^eiv p,ev Trjs 
bp.ovoLas, €v Se Tals aXXais iroXeaiv ov^ olov eri 
irpoaTtOiacTLV twv olKelcou oi Srjp^oKpaTTjcravTes, aAAa 

aa-Teas : the first two letters of this word are written twice by inad- 
vertence, at the end of one line and at the beginning of the following 

Hcv: MS. Bfv. The form of the second branch of the sentence is 
changed, for instead of continuing with another infinitive dependent on 
{jyovfievoi a finite verb, irpoanBiaaiv, is substituted. 

TTpoariBiaaiv tS>v olKeiav : i. e. not only did they not make any super- 
fluous contributions to public ends out of their own pockets, but on the 
contrary they made a redistribution of the property of the defeated 
oligarchs among themselves. 


[Col. 20.] /cat TTjv ^copav avdBacrTov iroLovaiv. 8ieXv6rj(rav 
Se KoL irpos tovs iv 'KXevcrivi \i^oi\K7](ravTas erei 
rpLTcp fiera. ttjv i^otKr}(riv, eVt [S'ei'aijj'erov ap- 

4 1 . Tavra fxev odv ev tols ^(TT€\po^v orvve^r] 
yeviadai Kaipols, Tore 8e Kvpios 6 Srjfios yevofievos 
Tav TTpaypLOLTCov ivearrjcraTO rrjv [vDv] odcrav woXt- 
Teiav, eVt Ylvdo8(opov fiev apxovTos, ^8^okovvtos 8e 
8t.Kaicos Tov 8rjp,ov Xafielv rr/v ^i^ovcrLJav 8ia to 
iroirjaao-OaL ttjv KadoSov 8l avTou tov 8rjijL0v. t]v 
8e Twv fxeTajSoXaiv iv8eKa.Tr} to^v dpijdfwv ar^TTj. 
TrpcoTrj fiev yap iyeveTO [^ /claratrratriy twv i^ 
dp^ijs 'Icovos K(u TWV p.€T avTov avvoLKiaavTcoV 
t6t€ yap irpcoTov eJy Tas TeTTapas avvevep-rjOrjaav 

erei Tpira: 401 B.C. Xenophon (Jlen. II. 4. 43) says merely iarcpco 
xpnva, and the final overthrow of the Thirty at Eleusis has been generally 
supposed to have followed within a few months after the re-establishment 
of the democracy. 

41. inX UvdoSapov : Aristotle has already stated (ch. 39) that the 
convention by which the democracy was restored took place in the 
year of Eucleides, and this certainly seems to have been the case. The 
Piraeus was no doubt re-occupied in the archonship of Pythodorus, but 
nothing was done towards re-establishing the democratic constitution 
till the following year, and the archonship of Eucleides was always 
taken as the date of the regeneration of Athens. 

SoKovvTos Se K.T.X. : Es the text stands, the only sense to be extracted 
from the passage is that the subsequent extension of the democracy 
(which is enlarged on below) was justified by the fact of its having 
secured its own re-establishment, without the open help of any other 
nation, and in the face of the opposition of a powerful party at Sparta. 
It may, however, be doubted whether the text is not corrupt. The 
repetition of Sri/iov . . . Sijiiov is awkward and unnatural, and it is 
possible that the former word has taken the place of a proper name by 
a scribe's error ; in which case the mutilated word given in the text as 
i^ovirlav should perhaps be altered to Trpoa-Tao-iav, and aMv would be 
read instead of airov. If this is correct, the name to be substituted for 
StjiMv would presumably be that of Thrasybulus. 


(f)vXas Koi Tovs ^uAojSatriAeiy KaTeaTrjcrav. Sevrepa 
8e Kcu TrptoTT) fX€Ta Tavra [e^Je^^ouora TroAire/ay tu^ls 
Tj irri Qrja-eois yevofievrj, fxiKpov TrapeyKklvovara rrfs 
^aaiXiKrjs. fiera 5e Tavrrjv rj eVi ApaKOVTOs, kv rj 
Kou vojxovs aveypa^av irpmrov. Tp'iTiq S" rj fiera 
TT]u (TTaa-LV rj kin "^.oXcovos, a(p' rjs oLp^rj Srj/xo- 
Kparias iyev€TO.- TerdpTr] d' rj eiri YiLaLo-Tpdrov 
TvpavvLS. irefXTrrrj 8' r] fiera (rrjv') twv Tvpdvvoav 
KaraXvaiv rj KXeicrdevovs, SrjfjLOTiKcoTepa rfjs 2o- 
Xcovos. eKTr) 5' ^ fxerd to, M.r)8LKd, ttJs i^ 'Apetov 
irayov fiovXrjs kiria-TaTOva-rjs . ifi86fJLr] 8e kol fierd 
Tavrrjv rjv ' ApicrT€i8r]s fiev VTreSei^ev, '^^LoXTrjs 8' 
eTrereAeorev KaraXvaas rrjv 'ApeoTraylriv ^ovXrjv' 

SevTepa fie (cm itpaTT) : the enumeration of the eleven /^cra^oXai begins 
here, the constitution of Ion being taken as the original establishment 
and not a fura^oK^, 

TToKiTcias rd^is : MS. TToXireiai/ ra^tv, for which some emendation is 
clearly necessary. 

lUKpov TrapeyKkivova-a rrjg ^aa-iKiKrjs: Aristotle's fuller account of Theseus 
is lost with the beginning of the MS., but Plutarch refers to him as 
saying that Theseus was the first to turn towards the people {Thes. 25, 
np&TOS a7T€K\ive irpos tov Sx^ov, as ' Kpi<TTOTeKr)s ^rjiri, Rose, Frag. 346). 

fjv 'Apia-TetSrjs fiev vTreSei^ev : Aristides is mentioned as sketching out 
the lines which Ephialtes followed, because he initiated the process of 
admitting the lower orders to a share in political life, which Ephialtes 
carried to a further stage by the overthrow of the aristocratic strong- 
hold in the Areopagus. It is noticeable that Aristides is named and 
not Themistocles, and that wherever he is mentioned in this work the 
view taken of him is as more of a democratic reformer than is usual in 
modem histories. In point of fact Aristides is far more important a 
person in reference to constitutional history than Themistocles. No 
constitutional alteration is ascribed to the latter except a share 
(subordinate, and for purely personal reasons) in the attack on the 
Areopagus, whereas Aristides certainly did something to give effect 
to the development of the democracy which was made inevitable by 
the Persian wars. 

'E^taXrijr 8' irvsTiKfaev : it is remarkable that Aristotle regards 
Ephialtes, and not Pericles, as the founder of the thorough-going 


€v y TrXetora avve^rj ttjv ttoXlv Sia tovs ^rjjxa- 
ycoyovs a/JLaprdveiv 8ia rrjv rrjs OakaTTTjs (f-PXW- 
oySorj 5' [^] Tmv TerpaKOVLCov KaTaa-racns, koL fiera 
Tavrrjv eudrrj 8e [5]i7/AOK/)ar/a wdXiv. SeKarrj 8 rj 
Tcov TpioLKOVTa Kcu 7} tS>v 8eKa Tvpavvis. ipSeKarr] 
8' rj fjLerd rrjv otto ^vXrjs kcu Ik Heipatecos Kado8ou, 
dcj) ^s SiayeyevrjTai p-ixf- '''V^ ^^^ "^^ Trpoa-CTriXa/x- 
^dvovaa tco irXriOei tt}v i^ovaiav. diravTcov yap 
avTOS avTov TreTroiTjKev 6 5^/toy Kvpiou /cat iravra 
8ioiKeiTai y^r](f)i(rpa(riv /cat SiKacTTTjpioLS, iu oiy 6 
8rip.6s icTTiv 6 Kparmv' kou yap a[i rj^y ^ovXt]s 
Kpiaeis els tov 8rjp.ov iXrjXvdaaiv. kcu tovto 
8oKov(ri TTOielv 6pda>s' ev8ia(l)dopa)T€poL yap oXiyoi 
T(ou TToXXmu elalv /c[at1 Kep8ei /c[atj ^dpiaiv. fxiaOo- 
(popov S" iKKXrfcriav to fiev irpatTOv direyvcocrav 
TTOielw ov a-vXXeyofievcov 8' els Tr]u eKKXrjaiav, 
dXXa TToXXd yj/rjcpi^ofjievcov twv Trpvravecov, oirays 
[Col. 21.] TrpocnaTTjTaL to ttXtjOos irpos ttjv eiriKvpaxTLV ttjs 

democracy of Athens. Pericles is not here named, and his reforms in 
the direction of extending the powers of the law-courts, and the 
institution of pay for service in them, are apparently classed with the 
other attempts of the demagogues to bid for the popular support by a 
free use of the public funds ; while his naval policy (which is a charac- 
teristic expressly ascribed to him in ch. 27) is held to be the great cause 
of the fall of Athens. Aristotle unquestionably did not hold the high 
opinion of Pericles which has been accepted in modem times, mainly, 
no doubt, on the strong testimony of Thucydides. 

TTfv n-dXiv : the third hand begins here. It is not so set as the 
second hand, but much larger and more straggling than the first ; and 
it contains several blunders. 

daKuTTr)! : MS. BaXaXaTTTis, 

6y86ri 8' : MS. oySotjv. 

KaraiTTaa-ts : MS. Karaorao-iv, and after the syllable xa a superfluous 
repetition of the letters raa- has been erased. 
oXtyoi : MS. oKiyov, 

A©HNAIi2N nOAlTElA. T07 

X^ipoTOvias, wpaTov /xev 'KyvppLOS o^oXou eTropia-ev, 
ixera Be tovtov 'HpaKXeLdrjs 6 KXa^o/xeviOf 6 
fiaa-iXevs €iriKaXovp.€vos Suo^oXov, ttoXlv 8' 'Ayvp- 
pios Tpicol3oXov. 

42. E^ei 5' Tj vvv Karaaraa-is rrjs iToXi.Telas 
TOvSe TOV TpOTTOU. p-eT^^OVCTLV fiev TrjS TToXiTeias 
ol i^ dix([)OTep(ou yeyovores acTTav. eyypd^oulrat] 
5' ely Tovs SrjfjLOTas oKTCoKaiSeKa err] yeyoi/orey' orav 
8e ypacpcovrai 8La\lrrj(j)i^oi>Tai wepl avratv opocravTes 

'Ayvppws : Agyrrhius flourished in the early part of the fourth century 
and was (r/parijyds in 389 B.C. It is clear from Aristophanes that the 
payment for attendance at the Ecclesia had been raised to three obols 
shortly before the performance of the Ecclesiazusae in 392 B.C. ; and 
as the original establishment of the payment was the work of the same 
person who raised it to three obols, it is clear that it cannot have taken 
place much, if at all, before the end of the fifth century. Boeckh 
therefore is wrong in supposing that the payment of one obol began 
either in the latter part of the government of Pericles or soon after- 
wards, and also that the payment rose at once from one to three obols, 
without passing through the intermediate stage of two obols. The two 
obol payment, however, probably lasted only a very short time, and the 
point is not of importance except that Boeckh uses the supposed fact 
that the payment for the Ecclesia was never two obols, as an argument 
that the payment of the judges likewise rose at once from one to three 

'Hpa(cX«'8ijs o KXafo/ie'wos : nothing seems to be known of this person. 

42. "Exei S' Tj vvv KaTdaraa-is : here the second part of the treatise may 
be said to begin. The first part is a sketch of the constitutional history 
of Athens ; the second is a description of the various details of the 
constitution as ultimately developed, and is mainly occupied with an 
enumeration of the several magistracies in existence and an account of 
their respective duties. This portion of the work has been a quarry 
from which the many ancient compilers of lexicons have drawn their 
materials. Pollux, Harpocration, Suidas, He^ychius, Photius, and 
several others embody a large number of fragments, sometimes with 
acknowledgment and sometimes without, of this part of Aristotle's 
treatise, and in many cases they enable us to supply gaps which have 
been caused by the unfortunately mutilated condition of the MS. 

oKTaKoideKa «ti/ : corrected in the MS. from oKTaKaiSeKaereis. 

8ia^ri<l>iCovTai : this passage is referred to by the scholiast on 


ol dTjiMOTai, TTpcoTov fiev el doKOva-L yeyov^vat Trjv 
rjXiKtav TTjv €K Tov vofiov, Kuu fir] So^axTL airepyovraL 
wdXiv eb TraiSalf, Sjevrepov 8' el eXevOepos eari koL 
yeyove Kara [ro]uy vofiovs. eTreiT av fxev eirr^r]- 
(j)i(ra)VTai p,r] ehai eXevOepov, 6 fiev e(l)Lr}cnv els to 
^LKaa-T'qpiov, ol 8e SijfioTai Kariqyopovs alpovvrai 
irevre \av\8pas e^ avrav, kolv p.ev /t^ 86^rj 5t[Kai]ft)y 
eyypa^\ea\6aL ircoXel tovtov rj ttoXls' eav Be viKrja-:^ 
Tols [5?;]/Aoraty e-rravayKes eyypdijyeTat,. fiera 8e 
ravra BoKifid^ei tovs eyypat^^evras ri fiovXr/, kocv tls 
86^\ri v\eaiTepos OKTCoKaiSeKa erav elvai ^rjiMiol [rovjs 
BrjfjLOTas Tovs eyypdu^avras. eirav 8e SoKipLO^a-O^oo- 
(Tiv 01 e(pr}^oi, (TvXXeyevTes ol iraTepes avrav [eijy 
Tas (pvXds opioaavTes alpovvrai rpels e/c rmv (f)v- 
Xetav tS)v inrep rerrapaKovTa err] yeyovoToov ovs av 
■qymvraL ^eXricTTOvs elvai xai eTTLT-qBeiOTarovs ein- 
fieXeHcrdai rmv e(f>^l3oov, e/c fie tovtcov 6 8r]p.os eva 
Trj[s (f>]vXT]s eKaaTTjs )(eipoTOvel crco^povicrTrjv Kal 
[eTrtp^eXTjT^v e/c rmv aXXcov 'Adrjvalwv eVt iravra. 
a\yX^a^6vTes S" ovTOt tow e(f)iqPovs, irp&rov p.ev to. 
lepa TrepirjXOov, eir els Hetpaiea Tropevovrai Kal 
^povpovcTLv ol piev TTjv ^ovvv\iav ol 8e rrjv olkttjv. 
)(eipo[Tovetj 8e Kal TraLBorpifias avrols 8vo Kal 
fitfiacr/caAouy, [ot'jrti/ey birXopua-^elv Kal ro^eveiv Kal 
aKovTi^eiv k[ou\ KaraTreXrTjv dipievai SiBda-Kovcnv. 
SlSoocti 8e Kal els Tpo[<f>rivj tois p.ev (raxppoviaTa'LS 

Aristophanes' Wasps 578) 'ApmroTAijs fie (jtrjaiv on yjni^to ol iyypa^o- 
fievoi SoKi/id^ovTai, vearepoi, litj irmv Tq elfv (Rose, Frag. 427). The 
scholiast proceeds, 'laas fi' Av irepi twv Kpivofievaiv naiSav fls roiis yvuviKoiis 
dyavas Xc'yfi" ovx i>s fv 8iKaoTi)pia> npivo/ievtov dW vno rmv npea^VTepav : 
but here the subject of \iyet must be Aristophanes, not Aristotle. 

A0HNAIi2N nOAlTElA. 109 

Bpax/J-Tjv filav CKaa-Tcp, rots 8' icprj^ois Terrapas 
ofioXovs CKatrTcp' ra 8e tcov (fjvXermv tSv avrov 
Xa/jL^avcov 6 crci)(l)povi(rTrjs eKaaros dyopd^ei rd eiri- 
TTjSeia irdcriv ety to kolvov {(Tvcr(riTov(rL yap Kara 
^vXas), Kcu T&v aXXfov iTrifieXeiTai, ttolvtcov. kcll 
Tov fiev wpayrov iviavrov ofjTcos i^dyovat' tov 8' 
\yj(rTepov, eKKXrja-ias iv tco dedrpcp yivopiviqs, dwo- 
Sei^afievoL t^ 8r]pcp rd Trepl rds rd^eis kol Xa^ovres [Col. 22.] 
a(nrL8a Koi 86pv Trapa ttjs iroXecos irepnroXovo't ttju 
Xfopav Koi SiaTpi^ovaiv iv tols <j)vXaKT7}pioi,s. 
(f>povpov(ri 8e ra 8vo erri, yXap.v8as e^ovres, kol 
dreXeis elal TrdvToov Kot 5tTK7/]i' ovVfe] 8L86aaLV 
ovT€ Xap^avovcTiv tva prj Trpdypacrt crvpfxiycleu 
Ti, irXyjv 7rep\ KXiQpov Koi iiriKX^lpov], Koiu tlvl 

Spaxf-fiv ixiav : this sum is not written in words in the MS., but in 
the common symbol (a. The same sum is also named as the pay of 
the Sophronistae in Lex. Seg. p. 301, and Photius {s. v. aa^povuTTai). 
Cf. Boeckh {P. E. II. 16). 

fTrifieXciTM ; MS. eTrijueXT/rai. 

EKKXijo-iaf . . . ct>v\aKTri plots : this passage is quoted by Harpocration 
{s. V. nepiiroKos) as from Aristotle's 'ABrivalav iroXireia (Rose, Frag. 
428). Harpocration, however, continues, itapariiprirkov ovv on 6 fitv 
^ApuTTOTeKtjs cva <j)ri<rw iviavrov iv toIs jrtpmoKois ylyvecrSai Toiis ctprj^ovs, 
6 8e AX(r\ivris 8vo' Kai ra;(a Sia tovto eirciivfiaBri tov Trpdy/iaTOS 6 pr/Tcop, 
Kaiirep Trdvraiv t&v itpfi^oau e| dvdyKjjs jTcpiwoXoivrav, Sri airos 8vo trrj 
yiyoviv iv rots trepmd'Kois' bio koi fiaprvpav ibfiKaaev avTo. Harpocration's 
mistake probably arose from taking tov 8' varepov (for which he reads 
rbv hevTepov ivuivTov) as expressing the whole duration of the service 
of the Trept'iroXoc ; and he either overlooked or had not before him 
the continuation of the passage, which shows that Aristotle was in 
perfect agreement with Aeschines {De Fals. Leg. p. 50). 

TT\s jrdXecor : Harpocration has tov Sr/fiov, 

x\ap.vBas : the chlamys was the distinctive garment of the ephebi, 
and is often referred to as such ; e.g. the epitaph of Meleager on a 
youth whom his mother oKTaKaiScKhav ea-ToKia-ev x^a/iu8i {Anth. Pal. 
VII. 468). Cf. Liddell and Scott, s. v. 

■npdyiuuri av/ifuyeUv : the reading is doubtful, especially of the second 
word, the letters being badly formed. 


Kara to yevos lepcoavur] yeurjTai. Sie^eXdovTCOV 
8e T&v Svelv irav rj^rj fieTO, twv aXXcou elaiv. ra 
fieu odv irepi ttjv t5>v ttoXlt&v eyypouprjv kcCI tovs 

€(j)-^l30VS TOVTOV €-)(€L TOV Tp&JTOV. 

43. Tay 5' dp)(as Tas Trepl tt]v eyKvuXiov 8ioiKr]_- 
(TLV airaaas iroiovcn KXrjpcoTois, irXrjv Tap.iov crrpa- 


Kprjvav i7rip.eX7]Tov, tuvtus 8e yeipoTOVOvaiv, Koi 
oi ■)(^etpoTovr]devTes ap^ovariv Ik Hauadrjpauov els 
YiavaOrjvaLa. ^€ipoTovov(rt Se kcu Tas Trpos tov 
TToXep-ov awaaas, ^ovXtj Se KXrjpovTai <p, v airo 
(pvXrjS €KacrT7)s. TrpvTavevei 8' iv fiepei Tmu <j>vXa>v 
eKaaTT] Kaff o tl av Xa-^axriv, al p,ev irp&raL t€t- 

UpmiTVPri : MS. lepofTvvr). 

43. KKr)p<i!>Tas : MS. TrXi/pmraj. 

TOV T&u Kprjvav inifjieKrjTov : this title does not occur elsewhere, but is 
presumably identical with that of cmardTris vSdrav, which Plutarch 
mentions as having been held by Themistocles (Them. 31). Pollux 
(VIII. liz) speaks of a Kpr\vo^v\aKiov apxhi but does not say whether 
it consisted of a single officer or of a board. Athens was very scantily 
supplied with fresh water, and therefore the superintendence of the 
aqueducts and reservoirs was a matter of great importance, which 
could not be entrusted to an officer appointed by lot. Photius and 
Hesychius mention Kprivo^vKaKes, who were probably the subordinates 
of the Kprivav imiif^^tyrris, 

apxovmv in JlavaBijvmav I the Panathenaic festival was at the end of 
Hecatombaeon, the first month of the Attic year. The magistrates 
elected by lot presumably came into office on the first of that month. 
The archons certainly did so ; as appears, for instance, from Antiphon 
De Choreut. p. 146. 

npvravevet k.t.\. : Harpocration (s. v. Trpvraveia), after stating the 
number of days in each prytany, adds, SteiKeKrai. 8e nepl tovtcdu 'Apia-- 
ToreXris iv Trj 'Adrjvaiav iroXiTfia. The scholiast to Plato's Laws (p. 459) 
appears to have drawn from this passage of Aristotle, and he uses 
almost the exact phrase, Kara creXiji/iji' yap ayoviri toi» imavTov, which 
occurs below. C/l Rose, Frag. 393. 

at fiiv irparai k.t.\. : this Statement as to the number of days in each 
prytany is repeated by Photius, but it is at variance with an in- 


Tapes e^ kol A ■^/xepas iKcia-Tr}, ai 8e ?■ at varepai 
Trevre /cat X i^fiepas eKaa-Tr)' Kara aekrjvrjv yap 
ayov(nv tov eviavrov. ot Se wpvTavevovT€s avrav 
Trparov fiev (rvcr(riTov(nu eu ry OoXco, Xa/i^dvovres 
apyvpiov irapa ttjs iroXecos, e-Treira avvayovcnv els 
TTjv ^ovXrjv Kcu TOV drjfiov Tyv fiev odu ^ovXrjv 
oarjfJLepaL, irXrjv idv tls d(f)eaifjLos y, tov 8e drjfJLOv 
TerpaKis ttJs irpvTaveias eKaaTrjSj kcu oa\a\ SeX 
■)(pr]p.aTi^eiv ttjv ^ovXrjv, koX o tl kv eKaaTrj ttj rjjxepa, 
KCU o TL ov Ka6r)K€L ovTOL 7rpoypd(j)ov(Ti. irpoypdcpovaL 

scription quoted by Clinton {Fast. Hell. II. 345) which contains an 
account of moneys expended in the archonship of Glaucippus (410 B.C.) ; 
for there is explicit mention made there of a thirty-sixth day in the 
eighth, ninth, and tenth prytanies, which would show that at that date 
the last four prytanies, and not the first four, were the longest. The 
statement of Aristotle is, however, equally explicit, and it only remains 
to conclude that a change was made at some time between 410 B.C. 
and the middle of the following century, of which Aristotle is speaking. 

a-vvayoviTiv . . eKa(TTris : Harpocration {s. v. Kvpia eKK\ri<Tla) quotes 
this passage, naming the 'h.8r)vaia>v woKirela as his authority (Rose, 
Frag. 395). Pollux (VIII. 95, 96) gives a summary of the rest of the 
chapter and the beginning of the next, generally using Aristotle's 
words, though without naming him as his authority (Frag. 394). 

Tfjv fiev ovv : Harpocration omits olv, which certainly does not seem 
to be wanted. 

6ai]\>ipai : MS. apparently oo-at tifiepai, but there does not seem to be 
classical authority for the phrase. 

idv : MS. fvav. 

XpriliarlCeiv : MS. ;f/)j;/jnrifei. 

KaflijKEi : the fourth and fifth letters are doubtful. If the reading is 
correct, the meaning is ' what subjects are not suitable.' 

Trpoypdcjjova-t Se k.t.X. : Harpocration, after the passage quoted just 
above (cf. note on (rwdyovinv k.t.X.) proceeds npoypdcpovai. 8e, (jiria-i, Kal 
Kvplav eKK\ri<rlav, iv 3 6fZ ras apxas UTroxfipoToveiv 01 SoKOViri firj KoK&s 
Spx'^u), KW. ntpl (j)v\aK^s 8e rijs x^P"^^' *"' ''"^ elaayyfKlas iv Tavrr] rij 
rj/jLtpa Toiis jSouXo/iefovr iroiuaBai <j>r)(n Kal ra iirjs, which is a slightly 
paraphrased version of the present passage (Rose, Frag. 39s). The 
Lex. rhet. Cantabrig. also refers to Aristotle, s. v. Kvpla ixKKriaia, and 
quotes the greater part of this passage, including the mention of the 
oarpoKo^opla below (Rose, Frag. 396). 


8e Kcu TCLS eKKXijo-Las ovtoi, fiiav fiev Kvplav, €V 
ri del ras apx«-S eirLXiLpOTOvdv el SoKovcrt /caAcoy 
apx'Ei-i', Kol irepX ctltov kolL irepi (l)vXaKrjs ttjs x^P"'^ 
Xp-qpxLTL^eLV, Koi ras dcrayyeXias h ravry rrj -qp-epa 
Tovs ^ovXopeuovs iroieladai, koi tols arroypa^as rcou 
brjfievopivoav dpayivcoaKeiv, kcu tols Xr)^eis Tm> kXtj- 
pcov KCU tSsv iTTiKX-qpcov dvayivcocTKeiv, [oTrtaJy firjoeva 
XdOrj fiTjSev eprjfiov yepofievov. eVi [5e] T7]9 eKTTj? 
TTpVTaveias irpos to'ls eiprj/jievoif koi irep\ rrjs ocrrpaKO- 
(l>opias eTrv)(€ipoTOVLav 8i86acriu ei SoKel Troieiv rj p,r}, 
Koi (rvKocpavTav Trpo^oXds rau 'Adjjuauov /cat rai/ ^e- 

TOLKCOV fl^XP'- '''P''^^ €KaT€p\cOV, idv TLJS VTTOCTXOp^VOS 

Ti {XTj TTOL-qcrr) tco Brjpm. irepav 8e tols LKeTijpiats, 

iv ^ Oeis 6 ^ovXa/xeuos iKerrjpLav §)v av ^ovXrjrai 

[Col. 23.] KcCl ISlcov KOt 8r}p.oa-ia)V SiaXe^erai irpos rov Srjpov. 

Kai tS>v iiitK\ripav: omitted in the Lex. rhet. Cantabrig., which also 
does not give the words which follow, as far as yfvoiuvov inclusive. 

elprjfiivois : MS. ripriiKvois. 

inixeipoToviav : the Lex. rhet. Cantabrig. gives wpoxaporoviav. 

StSoturiv : or possibly StSaxrtv. 

a-vKo(j)auTcov irpo^oKas : this form of procedure against avKo^avTm is 
mentioned by Aeschines {De Fals. Leg. p. 47), rStv avKo^avratv i>s 
KOKoipyau brjfiotria TrpoffoXas iroioifieOa, and Pollux (VIII. 46), npo^oKai, 
be ri<rav (cai ai Trjs avKoipavTias ypa^al. No mention, however, seems to 
be made anywhere of the limitation here described of the number of 
such complaints that could be heard at one sitting of the ecclesia. Cf. 
Schomann De comitiis Atheniensium, p. 232 seq. 

Ti p-T) : the reading is a little uncertain. The original scribe appears 
to have written, and in place of this the corrector has written either 
Ti pri or Tipr]t. The former is, however, probably in any case the true 
reading of the passage. 

6 ^ovKofievos : MS. ou ^ov\opevos. The paraphrase of the present 
passage given by Pollux (VIII. 96) runs, rj be bevnpa iKicKrja-ia avclrai 
Tiiis ffovKofifVois, iKfTr}piav Oepivois, Xiytiv abiSts irepi Te rSai Ibiav Kai t5>v 

biaXe^trai : MS. biabe^erai. 


at Se 8vo Trepl touv aWcov elaiv, iu aly KeXevovcnv oi 
vofioi Tpia fJLev tepav yjprjiiaTi^eLv, rpla 8e KTjpv^iv kclI 
•jrpea-^eLais, rpia 8' oaicov, ')(^pr}fiaTL^ov(rt,v S" iviore 
Kai avev irpo')(€LpoTOVLas. irpoa-ip^ovrai 8e Kol ol 


OL Tas eTTiCTToXas ^epovres tovtols airoSLSoaa-i. 

44- 'Etrrt '5' ima-TaTrfs Ta>v wpvTavecou ely 6 
Xa)((ov' ovTos S" iina-TaTei vvktu kol ■^fiepau, kol 
ovK €(TTLV ovre TrXelco ■)(p6vov ovre 8\s tov avrov 
yevecOaL. Trjpel 8' OVT09 ras re /cAjjy ray rSv lepav 
eu 019 ra )(pr]fjLaT iarlu /cat ypafi/xaTa ry iroXei, /cat 
TTjv 8rifio(riav (r(j)payl8a, kol p,eu€LV avayKolov iu ry 
doXw Tovrou iariv /cat TpiTTVv tcov TrpvTavewv rjv 
av oi)Tos KeXevT]. /cat eVetSai' crvvayaycocnu oi 
TTpVTaveLS Trjv ^ovXrjp rj tov 8riixov ovtos KXrjpoL 

at 8e 8io K.T.'K. I according to Pollux (/. c.) the third ecclesia in each 
prytany was assigned to the hearing of heralds and embassies, and 
the fourth to lepa xal Saia, 

rpia ixh K.T.\. : there is nothing in any other author to explain this 
passage, but it may be interpreted by comparison with the m^'xP' rpiStv 
€KaTepa>v above. Apparently only three motions or proposals with 
reference to each of these subjects were allowed in each prytany. The 
second rpia is a correction in the MS., the scribe having originally 
written rpia-l, being misled, no doubt, by the dative which follows. 

rpia B' oa-lav : over these words is written in the MS. the extraordinary 
correction a-vpaKocrtwv. The corrector must have understood this to go 
with irpe<r^eiais, but, even apart from the parallel passage in Pollux, 
common sense would show that it is impossible. Either the corrector 
mis-read the MS. from which the present copy was taken, or he was 
correcting from a different one, into which this corruption of rpia 
6' oa-lcov had crept. 

44. ema-Tarijy : Harpocration (s.V.) says, Sio eltriv ol KaSia-Tapevoi, 
imuTaTm, 6 p^v ek TrpvTaveav KKripovp.evos, 6 8e ix tS>v TrpoeSpav, &v inaTepos 
rlva SwiKriiTW SioiKft SeSrjKaKfV 6 'Api<TTOTe)irjs iv ' A-Bj^vaiau iroXireia, 
Suidas (s.V, imaTaTr)s) and Eustathius {in Odyss. XVII. 455) give 
summaries of the present chapter, mostly in Aristotle's words, but 
without mentioning him. Cf. Rose, Frag. 397. 



irpoiSpovs kvvia, tva e/c r^y (j>vXrjs eKaarrjs TrXrjv 

TrpoiSpovs : Harpocration (s. v.) refers to this passage, but misquotes 
its purport. He says, iK.\r)povvTo t&v irptrrdveaiv Kaff kKcuiTiyv irpvraveiav, 
els i^ iKaa-Trjs 0uX^j TrXiyv Trjs jrpvTavevovarjs, oItivcs ra rrepl ray eKKkija-ias 
dicoKovv. eKoKoivTO Se npoeSpoi, fnfiSrjirfp jrporjSpevov rav aXKav ijrdpTiov . . 
OTi S 6 KoKovpei/os iTniTTaTi)s KKrjpol avTovs, etpr/Kev ' ApKrroxf Xtjs eV 'Adrivaiav 
TTukmla (Rose, Frag. 398). His error is in stating that the proedri 
were elected for the prytany, whereas Aristotle' (who is correctly 
followed by Pollux and Photius) says that they were appointed afresh 
for each meeting of the Council or Ecclesia. The position of the 
proedri has been a subject of much discussion (cf. Schomann, De Com. 
Ath. 83 F-90 G), a considerable difficulty being raised by the second 
argument to Demosthenes in Androt. This document states that the 
irpvravevova-a ^uXij was divided into five sections of ten each, which 
executed the functions of the prytanes for seven days apiece, and 
that the section on duty was known as TrpoeSpoi. This appears to 
introduce a second kind of proedri, who were members of the trpvra- 
veiouo-a </)uX^ and held office for seven days, whereas Aristotle and the 
grammarians that follow him speak of proedri who were members of 
every tribe except the irpvTavivovaa and held office for one meeting of 
the Council or Ecclesia only. Schomann's view, which has been 
generally followed, is that it was the proedri of the Trpurayfuouo-a ^uX^ 
who presic^ed at the meetings of the Council and Ecclesia, and that 
the representatives of the other tribes only sat with them as a check on 
their action and to prevent jobbery in favour of the tribe in office. 
This involves rejecting the authority of the grammarians, which 
might be admissible so long as they stood alone, but which becomes a 
very different matter now that we have the testimony of Aristotle 
behind them ; and the question demands reconsideration. 

The strength of Schomann's argument lies in his references to the 
speech of Nicias in Thuc. VI. 14, in which the Prytanis is expressly 
addressed as having the duty of putting a question to the vote in the 
Ecclesia, and to the case of the generals after Arginusae, when 
Socrates refused to put to the vote the proposal to try them collectively. 
In the latter case Socrates (or Plato for him) represents himself as 
a member of the irpmavivovaa (pvKrj (Plat. Apol. p. 32), and Xenophon 
(Mem. I. I. 18) calls him cViCTraTijs. Thucydides, Plato, and Xenophon 
are contemporary authorities, and their evidence is perfectly clear ; 
and it must be taken as established that in the fifth century the 
prytanes presided over the meetings of the Ecclesia (and probably 
therefore of the Council too) ; but there is no sign of any division into 
sections of ten, nor is the title of proedri applied to them. When we 
pass to the fourth century the situation is changed. The proedri are 
repeatedly mentioned in the orators as the officials who put questions 


r^y irpvTavevova-rjs, koll ttoXlv (k tovtcov eiTLaTaTrjv 

to the vote and otherwise acted as presidents, but the evidence that 
they were identical with a section of the prytanes rests on a con- 
jectural emendation of a psephism quoted in Deraosth. i?^ Cor. (p. 235), 
which, if correct, would show that the tribe to which Demosthenes 
belonged was the irpvraveiovaa (j)v\r] at a time at which he is stated 
in the speech of Aeschines in Ctes. to have been an-pdeSpos (Schomann, 
p. 92 F). This, however, is much too weak a ground on which to 
contradict Aristotle, to say nothing of the numerous cases in which 
psephisms contain the names of proedri of tribes other than the 
TTpvTaveiova-a <f>v\ri. These are admitted by Schomann, but their 
evidence is rejected as being of late date and insufficient to refute 
Thucydides, Plato, and Xenophon ; which is true as regards the usage 
of the fifth century, but does not touch the evidence for the fourth, as 
to which the weight of authority is the other way. 

The question may be pushed further. Were there ever any proedri 
of the TrpvTaveiova-a (jyvXrj at all ? No authority ever notices the 
existence of two classes of proedri. The grammarians (following 
Aristotle) mention one class, the unknown author of an argument 
to a speech of Demosthenes mentions another. The orators use the 
term frequently, but in no case (if we reject the emendation of the 
passage in Demosthenes spoken of above) need it apply to members 
of the npvTaviiovcra (^uXij. It is highly improbable a priori that there 
should be two boards of somewhat similar but distinct natures known 
by the same name ; and the solitary authority which necessitates 
such a supposition (the argument to Demosth. in Androt.) is not 
one to which much weight can be attached. It is certain that the 
writer of it makes a gross mistake in stating that all elections were 
held on the last four days of the year ; it is probable that he has made 
another mistake as to the proedri. Whether the division of the fifty 
prytanes into sections of ten ever existed may be doubtful ; but it may 
be taken for certain that they were never called proedri. In the fifth 
century the prytanes, under their eVitn-aTijE, presided at the Council 
and Ecclesia ; in the fourth the proedri were instituted, appointed on 
each occasion from the other nine tribes, and the presidential duties 
were transferred to them and their imaTaT-qs. Passages in which the 
prytanes are spoken of in connection with the business of the Ecclesia 
(Schomann, 89, 90 F) are to be explained by observing that it was they 
that drew up the programme of business for each meeting, which they 
handed to the proedri for execution. A final proof that they did not 
themselves preside may be seen in the fact that the errtcn-ari;? of the 
prytanes, together with one-third of his colleagues, was forbidden to 
leave the Tholus during his day of office, and therefore could not have 
appeared in the Ecclesia. The prytanes had considerable administra- 
tive duties, notably the preparation of business to be submitted to the 

I a 


eva, Koi irapahihcocn to avrolr ol 5e 
irapaXa^ovT^S rrjs t evKoa-jxias eTn/xeXovvTai, Kai 
virep S>v bet ^iqpxtTi^iLV irpoTidiacnv, kol tols X^ V" 
Tovias Kpivova-LV, kcu to. aXXa iravra Slolkovo-iV 
Kol Tov T a(f)eLvat Kvpioi elcriv. KcCl eTria-TCLTrjcrai 
fxev ovK e^ea-Tiv irXelov tj awa^ Iv t^ iviavTw, 
7rpoe8p€veiu 8' e^eariv aira^ eiri rrjs irpvTaveias 
eKaa-TTjs. iroiovcn 8e kol 8eKapxai-pecria.s arparrjycov 
KOL LTTTrapxayv kol twv aXXcou tcov irpos tov TroXefiov 
apxoiv iu Ty iKKXrjcrca, Kaff o tl av tS 8rjp,a> SoKjj' 
TTOiova-L S" ol fieTO. Trjv ^ irpvTavevovTes icj)' a)v av 

Ecclesia ; but with the actual management of meetings they had, in 
the fourth century, nothing to do. 

rrpoypaiifia : Suidas reads npayixa, but the present reading is clearly 
superior, and the corruption is easily intelligible. The irpoypamia 
is of course the order of business which was to come before the 

irpondeamv : the corrector has written above the line the words Set 
Kai, which are apparently intended to be inserted before irpoTiBiaiTiv ; 
but Set has occurred already in the text, and koi is incompatible with 
the construction. The insertion must have been due to a misunder- 
standing of the passage. 

deKapxaipea-las : the word does not occur elsewhere, but its meaning 
plainly is an election of a board of ten, such as those which are here 

ol p.eTa TT]V r TrpvTaveiovTfS : the MS. has oifiera ra Trjv r npvTavfVovrcs, 
but the TO must be a repetition of the last syllable of the preposition. 
This statement as to the date of the election of the strategi is new. 
It has long been recognised that the author of the argument to 
Demosthenes in Androt. is wrong in saying that all elections took 
place in the last four days of the year {cf. Schomann, De Com. Ath. 
pp. 322-326) ; but nothing positive has been known on the subject. It 
has been conjectured {e.g. by Kohler, Monatsber. d. Akad. d. Wissen- 
schaften zu Berlin, 1866, p. 343) that the dpxaipe<ria took place in 
the ninth prytany ; but the present passage shows that it was in the 
first prytany after the sixth in which the omens were favourable. The 
fact that the date consequently varied in different years may account 
for the otherwise rather remarkable silence on the part of all ancient 
authorities on the subject. 


evarjiila yevrjTat. 8el 8e Trpo^ovXevfia yeveadai /cat 
Trepl TOVTCov. 

45' 'H 8e fiovXr] wporepov fiev rjv Kvpia koI 
Xpi^fiaaLV ^r}^ic5(rat /cat SyjaaL /cat aTroKTeluat. /cat 
Ava-Lfxa^ov avrrjs ayayova-qs a>s tov 8r}p,Lov Ka6r]- 
fievou r]8r] p.eXkovTa wrrodv-qaKeiv ^v/irjXeiSTjs 6 
'AXcoTr€KT]deu d(l)€t,X€TO, ov (paaKcov deiv avev SiKaa- 
Trjpiov yvwa-eois ovSeva tcov ttoXltcov airoOvrjo-KeLv' 
Kol Kpiaecof iv SiKacrTrjpicp yevofievrjs 6 fiev Avai- 
fxa^os anre^vyev /cat iTrcavvfxiav et^ei/ 6 airo tov 
TviravQV, 6 Se Srjfxos a,(f)eLXeTO rrjs ^ovXrjs to 6ava~ 
Tovv Koi 8elv /cat ■^(prjfiacrL ^rjfiiovv, /cat vofiov edeTO 
av TLVos ahiKeiv rj ^ovXr) /carayvm ^ ^rjfiiaKrr], Tas 
KaTayvcoaeis /cat tols iTn^rjfiLcoaeis eladyeiu Toi/s 
6ecrfJLO0eTas ety to diKacTTrjpLov, /cat o Ti av ol 
SiKacrTol ^r](f)iacovTai, tovto Kvpiov elvai, Kpivei 
8e Tas dpxds rj fiovXr] tols TrXeicTTas, pidXiaO* oaai [Col. 24.] 
^T^p-ara dia^eip[^ov(riV ov Kvpia 8' rj Kpicns, aAA' 
e(j>iaLp.os els to 8LKaaTr]piov. e^eaTi 8e /cat tois 
ISuoTais eiaayyeXXeiv rjv av ^ovXcovtul Tmv dp^av 

45. /SouXij : this summary jurisdiction of the Council in early times 
does not seem to be mentioned elsewhere, nor yet the story which 
Aristotle relates of its suppression. Unfortunately it is impossible 
to date this incident exactly, as neither of the persons mentioned, 
Lysimachus and Eumeleides, is otherwise known. One person of the 
name of Lysimachus who might suit chronologically is the son of 
Aristides, who is mentioned by Plutarch {Arist. 27) and Demosthenes 
(in Lept. p. 491) ; another is the person who is mentioned in Xen. 
Hell. II. 4. 8 as a hipparch in the service of the Thirty. The latter 
may very probably be the person intended, as his share in the 
proceedings of the Thirty might easily bring him into trouble ; but 
it was not an uncommon name, and we cannot be certain upon the 

'AXiojTfK^^ej/ : MS. aKmTTfdrjKcv. 


M XPW^^'- '"'''^ vojxoLS' €(f)€(ns 8e Koi tovtols icTTiv 
ds TO SiKaa-Trjpiov iau avrmv rj jSovXt] Karayvm. 
SoKifxd^ei Se kol tovs ^ovXevras tovs tov va-repov 
iviavTov ^ovXeva-ovras Koi Toiis ivvea ap-)(ov- 
ras. KOL irpoTepou fiev rjv diroSoKifJLacrai Kvpia, 
vvv Se TOVTOis €(l)€ais ioTTiv eif to 8iKacrTr)piov. 
TOVTOiv fiev oSv aKvpos Icttiv rj jSovXrj. TrpofiovXevei 
8' eh TOV 8rifiov, Kol ovk e^eaTLV ovSeu wirpo^ov- 
XevTov ovS" Ti av fir/ irpoypd^coaiv oi irpVTaveLS 
yjrrjcjiLcraiTdai tco 8-qpim' KaT avTO, yap TavTa evo^os 
icTTLU 6 VLKrjcras ypa(l>fj irapavop-wv. 

46. 'ETTi/xeAeirat 8e kol twv TreTroirjfieucov Tpirjpwv 


Kaivds TpcrjpeLS ^ TeTpi^peis, oiroTepas av 6 8fjp.os 
■)(eipOTOvi^(rrf, Koi a-Kevr} rauraty /cat vecoaoLKOvs ■ 
yeipoTOvel S' dp-)(iTiKT0va9 o 8rjfio9 iiri Tas vavs' 
av 8e /JLT) irapaSaxTLV i^eipyacrfieva TavTa tyj via 
fiovXfj, TTjv 8(op€av OVK ecTTiv avTois Xafieiv. iin 
[Col. 25.] yap Trj9 vaTepov fiovXrjs Xap-fSavovaiv. TroieiTai 

anpo^ovkeuTOV : MS. aTTpo^ovfivTOV. 

46. tS)u TrenotrjiJLevaiv Tpirjptov : the speech of Demosthenes against 
Androtion turns on the duty of the Council to^ superintend ship- 
building, and on the law, which Aristotle proceeds to mention, that 
unless this duty was fulfilled the Council was not to receive the 
customary donation (Saped) of a golden crown. 

Kaivas rpirjpeis : MS. Kaivas he rpirjpfis. The word Kaivas has been at 
first miswritten, and is followed by a blot. Probably the scribe made 
a blunder, and the corrector omitted to cancel the St. 

napah&atv : the subject of this would naturally be taken to be 01 
apxtTCKToves, but in the light of the speech of Demosthenes it appears 
that it is really meant to apply to the Council. 

iroielrai 8e k.t.X. : here begins the third roll of the papyrus, written 
in what has been described as the fourth hand. The first column 
of this section of the papyrus is headed y touos. This division of the 
papyrus has been mentioned and explained in the Introduction. 


8e Tas Tpirjpus, SeKa av8pas i^ ^aTravTcovj iXofieuT] 
TpiTjpoTTOLOvs. i^erd^ei fie /cat to. oiKodofxr/fiara 
Ta SrjfjLoa-ia iravra, Kav tls olBlk^Iv avrfj So^rj tS re 
fi^/iO) TOVTOv [a7r]o0atVei kcu Karayvova-a 7rapa8i8co(rL 

47- ^vvBiOLKel 8e Kou rals aXkais ap-^ous to, 
TrAeio-ra. Trparpv fiev yap ol rafilai r^y 'Adrjvas elal 
fiev SeKou KX\r]pa)To['^, ely e*K r^y ^D^i^y, e'/c irevra- 
KQ(TLop,^8i^vcov Kara tov SoAcoj/oy vopFoi' — eVt yap 6 
v\6p,os Kvpios ecTTLV — , ap-)(€L 8' 6 Xa^oav Kav TT aw 
irevT)s rj. 7rapa}\.a^j3dvov[(ri fie to'^ re ayaX/xa rrjs 
'Adrjvas Kttt ray viKas /cat tov aXXov Koap^ov koX to, 
Xp\r}paT\a ivavrlov ttJ^ jSouA^y. cTrei^' 01 TrcoXrjral 
I fiev elai, KXrjpovrai fi' ely Ik r^y 0[uA^y. p.ia]- 
Oovai fie Ta p,L(r6a)p.aTa iravTa kcu to, p.€TaXXa 
TTCoXovcrip /cat tol t^tj [^p^eTa rjou Tap.iov Totv crTpaTca- 

Tpir/poTTotois : Pollux (I. 84) mentions the names of these function- 
aries, and Demosthenes (in Attdrot. p. 598) refers to the Ta/iias tS>v 
TpitipoTToiSiv, and in such a way as to show that they were subordinate 
to the Council, anova 5 avrbv toloutov ipelv Tiva iv vplv \dyov, as ov^ rj 
^ovXfj yeyouev alria tov fii) 7reirotij<T6ai ras vais, dXX' 6 rap TpirjpoTTOimv 
rapias drrodpas (o^€tq e^^av irev6 rjptToXavTa. 

47. 01 raplai Trjs 'Adrjvas : cf. note on ch. 30. 

Kara tov SdXmi/or vopov : cf. ch. 8. 

apx" 8' Xaxajv lAv Trdvv TTcvrjs g : for a similar legal fiction compare 
ch. 7, sub fin. 

TrapoKapfidvovart . . . ^ovkrjs : quoted by Harpocration s. v. Taptat, as 
from Aristotle's 'Adrjvaiav. jroXirela (Rose, Froff. 402). 

jriaXijTai : Harpocration refers to the 'Adrjvaiav jroXiTem as containing 
an account of these ofificials, but his own description is not verbally 
taken from this source (Rose, Frag. 401). The description of Pollux 
(VIII. 99) has some points in common, but not all. 

rot) rapiov rStv (tt paTuanKav : this officer, together with the super- 
intendents of the theorica who are here coupled with him, is considered 
by Boeckh {P. E. II. 7) to have been first appointed after the Pelopon- 
nesian war in substitution for the hellenotamiae, who are not mentioned 



Trjs ^ovXrjs] KaraKvpovcnv orm au rj l3ovXr] j(€Lpo- 
Tovrja-r)' kou to, irpaOevTa fieTaXXix. ^ocrcij ipyaa-ifia, 
TO, els Tpia err] Treirpafieva koX to, (rvyKe-)(a)pr]fj.eva ra 
. . . 7r€7rpap,€va kai ras oixrias t(ov i^ 'Apeiov 
irdyov (pevyourav /cat rau .... ^evavrlou ttJs 
0jovX7Js TTCoXovaiv, KaraKvpovai 5' ol 6 apxovres' 
Koi TO, TeXr] to, els eviavT^vj Trewpap-eva dvaypd- 
^avTcs els XeXevmcop^eva ypap,p.aTela top to. irp . . . 
av 7rp[r]Tai Ty fiovXfj TrapaSiSoaaiu. dvaypa(f)ov(nv 
8e ^(copls p-ev ovs Sel KaTO. Trpv^rjaveiav eKacTTTjv 
KaTa^dXXeiv els deKa ypap.p.aTela, -xcopls 8' ovs 
Te^XovuTps'l evtavTov, ypap-p-aTelov KaTO, ttjv Kara- 
fioXrjv eKoia-Trjv TroLrja-avTes, X'^P'^s 5' ouy [eVi] Trjs 
evaTTjs TrpvTaveias, dvaypd(j)ov(n de Koi to. X^P'-"- 
Kcu TOLS oIkms Wa p^iadcodjevTa Koi wpaOevTa ev tS 
SiKaaTrjpim' /cat ydp Tavd' ovTOt TrwX^ovcrivj . . 
Tcov p.ev oIklwv ev e eTeaiv dvayKrj ttjv Tip.r]v 
dnoSovpai, Toiv 8e ^ffl/Jtcoi' ev fie/ca' KaTafiaXXovcnv 
8e TavTa eVi Trjs evuTrjs irpvTaveias e . . . [/cara- 
Kvpol 8e\ Koi 6 ^acnXevs Tas pnardaxreis, tS>v p,ev 

* coj'* dvaypd^as ev ypap.p.aTe[i<Joj (op.evois. 

ecTTL 8e kclI tovtcov rj p.ev pladcoais els eTrj 8eKa, 
KaTafidXXeTut S" eVi Trjs [^] irpvTaveias' 8l6 kou 
irXelcTTa x/oiy/iara eVi TUVTrjs crvXXeyeTai Trjs TrpvWaX- 
veias. el(r(l)epeTaL p,ev odv els Trjv l3ovX^v to. ypap.- 
fiar[eta] Tas naTa^oXds dvayeypap,p.eva, Trjpel 8' 6 

after that period. Another duty of the same officer is mentioned in 
the following chapter of the present treatise, viz. a share in the manage- 
ment of the games at the Panathenaic festival. 


Srj/ioaios' orav 5' 17 ■)(p\r)fxdTaiv KaTa0\oXr] irapa- 
8i8a>ai Tols OLTToSeKTais avra ravra Kade ....... 

iincrTvXLCou a>v eu ravTr) t^ VH-^P?' ''" "j^prjfiaTa 
KaTa^XT)\d4vTa .... a\iraXei(^6rivai' to. 5' a.XXa 

aTTOKelTUL xcopls tva firj Trpoe . /ca 

48. [Et(ri] 5' UTroSeKTai 8eKa, KeKXripco/xevot Kara 
(ftvXds' ovToi Se TrapaXa^ovres to. f^ypaj/ifiaTela 
diraXei^ovai ra Kara^aXXofieva xprjp^ara evavTLOu 
[r^y jQouAtJs"] Iv r^ fiovXevrrjpia), /cai irdXiv diro8i,- 
Soaaiv TO. ypap-iiareta WcB SrfjfjLOcria)' Kav tis eAAwrrj 
Kara^oXrjv ivrevdev yeypairrai, koX 81 rjv ^airlav' 
Koi a\vdyKT] to [e'AAlet^^ej' Kara^aXXuv rj 8e8e(r6ac, 
Koi ravra ela7rpd[rT€ti' y ^o]vX^ kcu 8riaaL [KupJ/a 
Kara rovs v6p,ovs iariv. ry fiev odu irporepaia 
8e-)(ovrai ra ^pr^/iara] /cat fxepi^ova-i rals dp-)(als, ry 
8' vcrrepaia rov re fxeptcrfiov ela^ayovja-i ypd^avres 
ev crauL8i /cat KaraX€yov(riu kv rto ^ovXevrijpup, Kai 
. . . aaiu iu rfj fiovXfj et ris riva ol8ev d8LK0vvra 
irepl rov p-eptaffMou rj ap^^ovra ^ 18icott]V, /cat yv( 
eTnylrTjipL^ovcnv idv ris ri SoKrj d^8iK€lu. KjXrjpovai 
5e /cat Xoyiaras i^ avrmv ol ^ovXevroiX 5e'/ca rovs 
XoyLovp.ivovs rfaty dp^-)(als Kara rrjv Trpvraveiav 
eKacrrTjv. KXrjpovai 8e /cat evOvvovs, eva rrjs (j)vXrjs 

a7raKeicj)6^vai : M S. airdKet(f>r]vai, which may, however, be intended 
for the second aorist, a7ra\i(j)^vai. 

48. wapaXafioPTes .... dijfioalcf : quoted from the 'Adrjvaiav noKneia by 
Harpocration, s. v. aitohiKrai (Rose, Frag. 400). 

eiVayouo-i : the reading is not very certain ; the c seems to have been 
written twice over, or else the word begins with 5«<r . . . 

fvBvvovs : Photius says of this word, apxh ?" "r. i^ Uaa-Trjs be (jivXfis 
ha K\rjpova-i, Toira fie bio wapiSpovs. Harpocration, after saying that 
the tu^wot dexa toi/ apiBfiov fjaav avdpes, nap' oh iStSoaav ol irpfa-^evaavTes 


eKaa-TTjs, kcu irapeSpovs |3 €Ka(rTco rav €v6vv(ov, oh 
avayKOLov eaTi tols ^yop\cus Kara tov iTrcouvfiou tou 
TTJf (J)vXt]S €KacrTr]S Ka6rj(rdai, Kav Tis j8ou[A77rai] tivl 
Tav TOLS evOvvas ev Tcp SLKaa-TTjpl^ SeSooKOTCov euros 
7 l-q/JLepau a^'l ^y eScoKC ray evdvvas evOvvav ava 
ISiav avTi8\jiKJr][cni''\ ip^aXecr6ai, ypdxf/^as els WLvaKLOV 
XeXevKcofievov Tovuofxa rovTOV kol to tov (^evyovTOS 
K(u TO aSiKTjfi o TL oLv iyKaXfj, kol Tifirj/ia ^irapaXja- 
fiofieuos o TL av avTw SoKy diScocnv tS evOvvco' 6 8e 
Xaficav TOVTO kcu a[/cou(ray] eav fiev Karayvw irapa- 
SlScocnv TO, fiev 'ISlu tols diKaa-Tois tols Kara 8\r)fiovs 
ot] TTjv (j)vXr)v Tavrrju elaayovcTLV, tu 8e 8r]p,oaLa 
TOLS dea-fJLodeTa^is avdjypdipeL. ol 8e 6eap.o6eTaL eav 
7rapaXdj3a)aLu ttclXlv eladyovaLV [tt)!/] evdvvav els to 
8LKacrTrjpiov, kcu o tl av yvaxTLV ol 5i/cao-r[ai 17 


49. AoKifid^eL 8e KOL tovs lttttovs tj fiovXrj, Kav 
■fxev TLS KaA[ray e^cov KaKcos 8oKfj Tpe(peLV, ^"qp-Lol Tw 
(TLTCp, TOLS 8e fxy SvvafievoLS [rj^e^eii' ^ p,r) OeXovcTL 
fieveLV dvdyovcn Tpo)(ov eVt r^v .... [/cat 6 rJoOro 
iraQcov d86KLfj.6s ea-Ti. 8oKLfj.d^ei 8e Kal tovs irp^oSj- 
[Col. 26.] p\6fJiovs, ot av a^vTjj 8oKa>(rLV eTTLTi^SeLoi 7rpo8po- 
fjLeveLV elvaL, Kav TLva 7r[/Oo]j(et/)oroi'^cri7 KaTafiefirjKev 
ovTos. 8oKip,d^eL 8e Kal tovs dvLTnrovs, Kav TLva 
7rpo)(eLpoTOV7](rri ireTravTai fiiadocftopav ovtos. tovs 

fl ap^avTcs fj SioiKijo-axTcr « rmv Srjitocriav ras eliBivas, adds SteiXeKrat 
TTepi airav 'ApiororeXi;? ev rrj 'Adrjvaiav 7roXiT«'a (Rose, Frag. 405). 

dvn8lKj]inv : the reading is doubtful. The reading of the MS. is aire- 
or oKre-, but the e may be a scribe's mistake. 

49. avdyovcri : over the letters va is written a correction, which appears 
to consist of the letters \y ; but what is intended by the alteration, or 
what is the whole process spoken of, it is impossible to say. 


8' tTTTreay KaraXeyovcnv 01 KaraXoyeis, ovs av b 
8rjfjios xeipoTOvrja-y Se'/ca avSpas' ovs 5' au Kara- 
Xe^coa-L 7rapa8i86a(ri rots hnrap-)(OLs kcu (jivXap^ois, 
ovTOi 8e wapaXajSovTes elcr^epovcrt t\ov] KaraXoyov 
els Tr}v ^ovXrjv kou tov irivaKa avoi^avres, iv m Kara- 
(re(rr]fia(TiJ.€va ra ovop-ara rmu hnremv iaTi, tovs pev 
i^op-vvpidvovs Tcov Trporepov iyyeypapLpevcov p.rj 8vva- 
Tovs cluai Tois crmpaa-LV imreveiv e^aXel^ovcn, tovs 
8e KareiXeyp-evovs [/cJaAoOort, kolv piv ris i^opoa-rjTai 
p.T] 8vvaa-daL rm acopaTi LTnreveiu rj rfj ovaia tovtov 
a<pLa(rLV, tov 8e p,r] i^opLvvpievov 8ia^eipoTOi'OV(riv oi 
fiovXevTol TTOTepov eTnTr)8ei6s icTTiv hnreveLV rj ov. 
Kav p.€v xeipoTOVT^acocTLV, iyypa(f)ov(TLv els tov irivaKa, 
ei 5e pir], kcu tovtov a(^Lacriv. eKpivev 8e ttotc Kal 
Ta TrapaSeiypaTa /cat tov iriirXov rj ^ovXrj, vvv 8e 
to SiKao-TTjpiov TO XayoV i86Kovv yap ovtol /cara- 
■)(apL^e(TdaL ttjv Kpicriv. Kal ttJs iroLTjaems tov vikcov 
Kal TCOV aOXcov tcov els to, Havadrjvaia avveiripieXeLTai 

irivaKa : the last letter of this word is omitted in the MS., through 
confusion with the first letter of the following word, avol^avTes. 

Karaaea^fiaa-pieva : after the 17 in the middle of this word the letters o 
fi{ev) 8 have been written by mistake and then cancelled. 

f^aKe[<f)ov<n : MS. e^aXixjiovai, 

e^o^oVijTat : MS. e^ofirjcrijTai. 

napabeiyiiaTa : this appears to mean the plans for public buildings 
and other such matters, which had to be selected originally by the 
Council, but as that body came to be suspected of jobbery this class of 
business was transferred from it to a jury chosen by lot. As the latter 
body would be chosen only for each particular occasion, there would 
not be the opportunity of bringing private influence to bear upon it 
before-hand which existed in the case of the Council. 

TOV iritrKov : the peplus carried in the great Panathenaic procession 
was woven on each occasion by a number of girls called ipyaa-rivai, 
under the superintendence of two maidens of superior family known as 
apprjipopoi. It appears from the present passage that the former must 
have been selected by the Council and that it was a position of some 


fxera tov Ta/iiov t&v crTparuoTiKcav . SoKifia^ec oe 

Kcu Tovs dSwdrovs t] fiovXrj' vofJLOS yap ecmv os 

KcXevei. Toi/s Ivtos rpi&u flump KeKTrjfxevovs Kai to 

acofxa 7re7rr]pcop.euov$ ware fir] bwaadai fiTfSeu kpyov 

ipyd^ecrdaL SoKifid^eiv fieu Trjv ^ovXrjv, 8i86vai Se 

drjfiocria. Tpo(l)^v 8vo o^oXoi/s eKaaTO) rrjs rjfiipas' 

KCU rafiias icrrlv avrois KXrjpcoTos. crvvoiKel 8e Kol 

Tals aXXais dpj(ous ra irXelaO', ms kiros ehrelv. ra 

fiev odv VTTO Trjs ^ovXrjs 8iOLKOVfieva ravT eariv. 

50. J^XrjpovvTai 5e kol lepav iTna-KevaaTai 5e/ca 

dv8pes, 01 Xafi^dvovres TpLaKovra fivds irapa tcov 

a7ro[5e]/cr(5i/ iiriaK^vd^ovaiv rd fidXiara 8e6fieua 

TCOV iepav, kol daTVVOfioi 8iKa. tovtcov 8e e yiev\ 

dp^ovaLv iv Heipaiel, irivT€ 8' iv daTei, koL Tas re 

avXrjTpiSas kol ray yjrdXTpias [/cat] tus KiOapiaTpias 

ovTOL aKOTTOvcTLV OTTCos fiT} irXeiovos r] 8veiv 8pa)(jials 

fiiadcodrjaovTai, Kctv irXeiovs ttju avTrjv (nrov8a<T(oaL 

Xafielv ovToi 8iaKXr]pov(TL koI t<^ Xa^ovTi fiicrdovcnv. 

privilege or advantage, since the Council was accused of jobbery in its 

TOVS aSwdrovs: Harpocration (s.v. aSvi/aroi) refers to this passage, 
though he mis-quotes part of its purport. His words are oi evros rpiav 
fxvmv KeKTrjfievoi tA aiifia TtenripoifUvoi. iXafi^avov Se oSroi SoKifUurdevTis 
iirb Trjs ^ovXrjs /3' ofioXovs T^r fjiicpas fKacTTrjs, rj ojSoXo)/ cos <pr](riv 'ApiCT- 
ToreXijs ev 'Adijvaiav irohiTfia (Rose, Frag. 430). On the other hand the 
Lex. Seg. (p. 200, 3) quotes Aristotle as he stands here, eSoKi/idfoj/ro 8e 
01 aSvvaTOL VTTO TTjs tSip irevraKoo'itav ^ovXrjs koX iXdfi^avov r^s ^pepaSj as 
piv Av(Tias Xc'yfi, o/SoXAk eva, i)s 6e *i\d;(opos, nevre, 'AptoToreXijs 8c dvo 


50. aaTvv6poi : Harpocration {s. v.), Sciea ^iriv eivai tovs d<TTvv6povs 
' A.pitTTori'Ki^s iv tji 'ASrjvaitav TToXiTeia, jreVTt pev iv Ufipaiel, irivTe 8' iv 
aaTei. tovtois dc (j>ritn, pekfiv wepi re tS>v avKrjTpidav Kaii ^aKTpi&v Ka\ t&v 
KOTTpoKdyav Koi tS>v toiovtoiv (Rose, Frag. 408). 

ncipaiei : M S. Ilcipaci. 

hm'ai Spaxpais : SO in the MS. The last two letters oiSpaxpaU have 
been blotted in writing and are re-written above. 


Kai OTTCos Tcou KOTvpoXoycov nrjSeis ei> tols Trapa, tov 
rei^ouy Kara^aXeL Koirpov iinfJLeXovvTai, kcu ras 
080119 KcoXvovac KUTOiKoSoixelp KCU 8pv<j>aKT0vs virep 
Ta>v ob&v vTrepreiveiv kol o^erovs fierecopovs ely t^v 
680V eKpovv exo/i[ei'Oi;y] Troielv KoiX ras dvpiSas ety 
T7]u odou avotyetV kol tovs iv tols 6801s airoyiyvo- 
fxevovs dvaipova-iv, e^ovrey 8r)poariovs VTrrjperas. 

iu T0I9 jrapu tov relxovs : the original writing runs evroj iSiav tov 
Teixovs, but the s at the end of evTos and the 8 in idiav appear to be 
cancelled by dots placed above them, and over the last three letters 
of i8mv are written the characters s 7r(apa). The latter character is 
rather doubtful and might be read as ra. 

KaTo^aXel : the last four letters are very faint, and there has been 
some alteration made in them. Apparently KaTa/3a\i;t was written first 
and the ij corrected to e. 

iTTifieXovvTai : MS. fTTififXovTai, but as the form inifieKiojiai is else- 
where used in this MS. it seems better to adopt it here also. 

KM Tas odoiis k.t.X. : one of the excerpts from Heraclides nepl jroXireias 
'Adrjvalmv runs Kai t&v oSSiv tnifieXovvTai ottcoj fiij nves dvoiKoSoiiwinv 
aiiTas rj 8pv(j>dKTovs vnepTcivoKTiv (Rose, ed. 1886, Frag. 61 1). 

Tas dvpiSas els Tr)v oBov avoiyeiv : it has been commonly supposed that 
the doors of Greek houses habitually opened outwards, and this is 
supported by passages from Menander and his Latin imitators and 
from other Greek authors. That this was the belief of the ancients 
themselves is seen from Plutarch {PopUc. 20), where he says rar 8' 
'EXXi/wkos jrpoTepou ovtios ex^'" (^''- f'"™^ dnayeaSai ttjv atXeiov) cmdcrag 
\eyov<Tiv dno ratv Ka/icoSiSiv Xa/i^vovTcs, Sti kotttouo-i koi >f'O0oi)(7t ray 
avT&v 6vpas evSoSev oi wpoXevai p,fWovTes, onas aiirdrja'is e^io yivoiTO rots 
napepxap-evois rj Ttpoe^rrSxri Kai jit) KaToKafi^avoiVTO irpoloia'ais Tois KkeKTiacriv 
eh Tou (TTcvairov. There are also several passages in the grammarians 
in which \^o0e<o is distinguished as being used for the knocking at the 
door by a person coming out, and Kpova or kowtoj for that of a person 
going in. Bekker however {Charicles, Excurs. to 3rd Chapter) argues 
that ■\lro(j)e<o refers only to the noise made by a door in opening, which 
warned the actors standing outside that some one was entering from 
the house. That doors did in early times open outwards is proved by 
the present passage of Aristotle, which shows that it was made the 
duty of a magistrate to stop the practice, and by the fact quoted by 
the same writer in the Economics (11. 4) that Hippias the tyrant put 
a tax on doors which opened in that way. Whether that measure was 
ppntinued after the expulsion of the Pisistratidae we do not know ; 


5 1 . KXrjpo^yvTaL 8e koI ayopavqjioi, irivre /xev els 
Tleipatea, e S" els aarv. tovtois Se vtto t5)v vofuov 
irpoaTeTaKTai tS)v w^viai^v eirifieXe'icrdai iravTcov oircos 
KaOapa kou aKL^8rjXa ircoXrjTaL. KXrjpovvTaL 8e kul 
fjueTpovo/xoi, irevre fxev els aarv, e 8e els Heipaiea' Kui 
ovTOL t5)v pierpcov koL t&v araOpxov eTTifieXovvTaL ivav- 
Tcov oircos 01 TTcoXovvTes XpTjcrcovTai 8iKai,0LS. ijcrav 8e 
Kol (TLTOCjivXaKes KXrjpcoToi, Tvevre p.ev els Ueipaiea, 

but it seems certain that in the course of the fifth century the practice 
was forbidden. The interpretation of the passages in the comedians 
is another question, which cannot be fully argued here ; but while it is 
certain that the ancients in subsequent times believed them to speak 
of a knocking on the part of persons going out, as a warning that 
the door was about to open, it seems improbable that the practice of 
opening outwards can really have existed in the times of Menander, in 
face of this statement of Aristotle, who was one of the generation 
preceding the comic writer. 

51. dyopavojjioi : Harpocration (s.v.) refers to this treatise for the 
number of these officials (Rose, Frag. 409). 

Iierpovoiioi. : the MSS. of Harpocration (s. v.) read ^a-av 8e tov apiSfiov 
n, els fih TOV Ueipaia i, e 8' tls atrru, and as he proceeds shortly 
afterwards to refer to this treatise of Aristotle for the description of 
their duties, his account of their numbers might have been supposed 
to rest on the same authority. Boeckh {P. E. I. 9) accepts the total 
fifteen, which he thinks is supported, as against the ten given by 
Photius, by its very uncommonness ; but he reverses the sub-division, 
assigning ten to the city and five to the Piraeus, in which reading he 
is followed by Rose {Frag. 412). Dindorf, however, in his edition 
of Harpocration, corrects the text, reading r^aav hi tov apiQuov i, e p,ev 
€is TOV rieipaia, e' 8' els aa-ru. That this is the right reading is proved by 
the text of Aristotle; and, as Dindorf shows, the error could easily 
have arisen from the adjoining numerals i and e being combined, an 
additional number being supplied afterwards for the magistrates in 
Piraeus, in accordance with this total. 

(nTo(j)i\aKes : there is the same sort of confusion about the numbers 
here as in the case of the metronomi. The MSS. of Harpocration {s. v.), 
who refers to this treatise as his authority, read ^o-ai/ be toi' apiS/iov 
te p.ev iv aa-Tei, e 8' iv Tletpmet, where all that is necessary is to divide the 
number Te into the two numbers i' and e', which is done by Dindorf in 
his edition. Instead of this, Boeckh {P. and Rose (Frag. 411) 
retain the total Te and insert i' after it ; in which they have the partial 


Trevre 8 els acrrv, vvv 5' eiKoai jxeu els aarv, 
TrepTeicaiSeKa S" els Heipaiea. ovtol S" eTTLfieXovvTai, 
irpcarov jxev ottcos o ev ayopa crlros dpyos mvLos ecrraL 
SiKaiws, eireiff ottcos ol re fivXcodpol irpos ras rifias 
t5>v Kpi6(ov ra aX(f>iTa TrcoXrjaovcnv kol ol apToirmXai 
irpos ras Tifxas Ta>v irvpoav tovs aprovs, /cat tov 
araOpxiv ayovras oaov av ovtol Ta^axriv 6 yap 
vopos TovTovs KeXevei Tarreiv. epiropiov S" eiri- 
/jLeXrjTas SeKa KXyjpovcnv tovtols 8e TrpocrTeTaKrat 
Tcov T efiTTOpLcov emfxeXelorOat,, kol tov ctltov tov 
KUTairXeovTos els to (tltlkov ifiTroptov to. 8vo fiepi] 
tovs epiropovs avayKa^eiv els to aoTV Kopi^eiv. 

52. Ka^iO"racri fie kolI tovs evSeKa KXrjpcoTovs, 
eiripeX'qa'opevovs twv ev rc5 SeapxoTijpico, kol tovs 
aTrayop,evovs KXewTas kcu tovs av^pawo^LaTas kcu 
tovs XcoTTodvTas, av pev ^opoXoyajcri, OavaTco ^rjpuo- 

support of Photius, who has iio-av 8e tov apiBuhv ttoKm /lev nevTeKmSena iv 
aa-rei, e' 8' ev Ilfipaiet, which they emend by inserting i' before iv aa-ret. 
The text of Aristotle supports DindorPs reading in Harpocration, and 
has analogy on its side. Photius may have been misled by Harpocra- 
tion, and his authority is weakened by his subsequent statement, 
varepov Se X fiev iv aaTft, e' 8' iv Ueipaiei, where he has the total, thirty- 
five, correct, but the division wrong. 

apyos : the reading is a little doubtful. The meaning would be * un- 
prepared corn,' in which sense the word is used by Hippocrates (irvpol 
apyoi, Vet. Med. 12). 

ifnTopiav i7rifie\T]Tas . . . Kofii^etv : Harpocration quotes this passage 
as from Aristotle, but with the variant 'Attikov for o-iniedy (Rose, Frag. 
410). The Lex. Seg. (p. 255) gives, substantially the same words, but 
has axrciKov for ^Attikov. The name given by Aristotle is more 
probable. The ' Corn-market ' is an intelligible and distinctive title, 
while the ' Attic-market ' would be vague and unmeaning. 

52. o/ioXoySo-i : the word is almost entirely lost in a flaw in the 
papyrus, but can be restored with certainty from the Lex. Seg. (p. 310, 
14), o* €v8eKa Toiis (cXejTTar Kal tovs \ano8vTas Kai avSpairoSurTas ofioXo- 
yovvras /uv aTTOKTivvvovcriv, avriKiyovTas 8e ft<rdyov<nv els to SiKaaT^piov, 


aovras, av S" afi^icr^yiTmcnv elaa^ovTas ely to 
StKaa-TrfpLov, kolv fiev awo^vycoa-iv a<l)ri(rovTas, el 
fie fir] Tore OavaraxrovTas, k<u to, [aJ7roypa(j)6fj,ei>a 
^oapla Koi o'lKias elcra^ovTas els to SiKacrTi^piov, 
Koi TO. So^avTa S^r]p,j6(na eivai wapa^axrovTas Tols 
ttooXtjtols, Koi Ta9 evSei^eis elcrd^ovTas' KoiX yap 
TavTUs elaayovaiv ol evSeKa. eia-ayovai 8e Tmv 
ivSeL^ecop Tivas kol ol 6e(rp,o0eTai. v KXTjpovat Se 
Koi elcraycoyeas e av8pas, oi Tas ififirjvovs ela-ayova-c 
BiKas, bvolv (f)vXaiu €KacrTos. elcri 8' e/xfirjuoi 
TrpoLKos, eav Tis o^eiXcov firj airo8m, kolv tis eVi 
Spaxfly 8av€ca-ap,€uos diroaTepy, Kav tls iu dyopa 
fiovX6p,ei>os ipyd^eadaL 8ai>e[crr}Tai Trapd tlvos d(j)op- 
firjv, eTi 8' aiKeias kol ipaviKas kcu KoivcoviKas kou 
dv8paTr68cov koX v7ro^vy[icojv kol Tpirjpap^Las koX 
Tpaire^LTiKOLS. ovtoi fiev odu rauray 8iKd^ov(nv i/x- 

and Pollux (VIII. 102), ot evScKa . . . eVefteXoOi/ro rav eu ra beaixaiTqpia 
Kai aTrrjyov KKewras ap8pairo8i(rTas XanoSiras, ft fiev ofioKoyoiev BavarairouTcs, 
el Se fifj eltrd^ovres els ra BiKaaTfjpia k&v &XSi<nv aTTOKTevovvTes. Rose (in 
his last edition, 1886) gives these two passages as Frag. 429, though 
Aristotle is not referred to by name in them. The Athenian admini- 
stration of law does not seem to have held out much inducement to 
criminals to confess. 

^riiuaxrovTas : MS. (rnxicoBrja-ovTas, evidently a confusion between 
^TnuaxTOvras and ^ruiiadrfaoiiivovs. 

hv&': MS. evh'. 

e/x/xj/voi : the list of the classes of cases included under this head 
(which had to be decided within a month of their commencement) is 
much longer than that elsewhere given. Pollux (VIII. loi), s.v. 
errayoyels, says ^(rav 8e irpoiKds, cpavmai, eiiTropiKcd. Harpocration (s. v. 
ffifirivot SUm) mentions only the last two of these. Boeckh argues that 
transactions relating to mines came under the same head, but Aristotle 
does not mention them as such {c/. Boeckh's treatise on the silver 
mines of Laurium, Denkschr. d. Berl. Akad. 1815). 

Savei(Tdp.€vos : MS. SavKrafievos, and again a few words later, Sawo-ijrat. 

eu dyopa ; the MS. has eav for fc, the mistake being doubtless caused 
by the fact that tav occurs immediately above it in the .preceding line. 

A©HNAmN nOAlTE[A. 139 

firjvovs eiaay^ovjTes, ot 5' OLTrodeKTai toIs reXavais 
KcCi Kara ratv TeXaivwv, ra fiev ti^Xf- ^^'^^ Spa^av 
ovres KvpioL, ra 8' aAA' ety to SiKaaTripiop ei(rd- 
yovres tp.fir)va. 

53. J^Xrjpovcri 5e /cat TerrapaKOVTa, rerrapas e^ 
eKacTTTjs (j)vXrjs, wpos ohs ras aXXas BIkus Xay^avov- 
aiv ot Trporep^ovj fiev rjaap rpiaKOVTa, koX Kara 
BrjiJLOVs Trepuovres iSiKa^ov, fiera Se ttjv eVi twv 
rpiaKOVTa oXiyap^ia^vl TCTTapaKovTa yeyovacriv. 
/cat Ta p.ev p-^XP'' ^^'^'^ 8pa^a>v avTOTeXeis etcrt [Col. 27 ] 
[/c^iVetJi', TO, 8' virep tovto to Tipr^pia toIs diaiTr/Tals 
7rapa8i86a<Tiv . ol 8e irapaXa^ovTes, [ejaj/ pLrj 8v- 

bpaxiiav : represented in the MS. by its symbol (. 

53. TeTTapcLKovra : the name of these magistrates, which Aristotle 
omits, was Kara Srjfiovs SiKacrrai, as appears from Harpocration and 
Pollux. Harpocration (s. v.) says Trepi tS>v Kara Srjiiovs StKaa-riov, a>t 
irpoTepov fiiv r^trav X Kai Kara Brjfiovs Trepuovres ediKa^oVj etVa iyivovTO ^ , 
iiprfKev 'ApKTTOTeXrjs ev rf/ noKtreia. Pollux (VIII. loo) mentions the 
ten-drachma limit, ot 8e TerrapaKovTa npoTipov p,iv rfirav Tpiaxoi/ra, oi 
TTcpuoVTes Kara STjfiovs ra y^ej^pi bpaxf^ov bi<a fdUa^ov, to. 8( vnep ravra 
diaiTrjTols jrapedi^oa'av' fiera 8e rrjv tS>u TpiaKovTa oXtyapxi-ftv fiiiret tov 
apiBjiov TOV rpiaKOVTa rfrrapaKovra iytvovro (Rose, Frag. 413). They 
were instituted by Pisistratus, as is recorded in ch. 16, but apparently 
the ofifice fell into disuse after the fall of the tyranny and was re- 
established in 453 B.C., as is stated in ch. 26. 

e| fKcia-rris (j)vX^s : this seems to have been at first intended to be 
written (k rrjs (pvX^s iKda-rrjs or ck rav (j)v\S>v, but after ek t there is a 
blot which is followed by the word iKaartjs, while (fivXijs is inserted at 
the beginning of the next line. This makes it necessary to alter ex 
into e|. 

\ayxdvovaiv : Xayxdvetv hUrjv is the phrase applied to the suitor, who 
obtains leave to bring a suit before the proper magistrate. The subject 
therefore which must be supplied for Xayxdvovtrw here is some word 
meaning ' suitors.' 

Trepuovres: MS. ■jrepiovres. This elision is found in the comedians 
(c/. Liddell and Scott), but does not appear to be justified in a historian. 

Toij SuuTrjrais : cf. Harpocration (s. v.), who cites Aristotle (Aeyet fie 
irepX avrav ' ApiaroreKrjs ev 'Adrivalav iroXireia), and Pollux (VHI. 126). 
Rose, Frag-. 414. 



vwvTai SiaXvaaL, yLyvcocTKOvcn, kcLv fiev afi(l)OTepoi9 
dpea-Ky to, yvcocrOevTa \kou\ efijxivaxriv, exet TeAoy 77 
Slkt}. av 8' 6 eT€po9 ((py rav olvtiSlkcov els to 
8tKa(TTr]pL0v, ep^akovres ray paprvplas kcu ras 
irpoKXrjcreis kcu tovs v6p,ovs els e\ivovs, \cop\s p-ev 
Tas Tov 8l(okovtos xcopXs Be ras rov (l)€vyovTOS, kcu 
TovTovs KaTacrrjprjvdpevoL kcu ttjp Kpiaiv tov Sluitt]- 
Tov yeypapp^evriv iv ypap,p,aTe[a) irpocrapTrjaavTes, 
irapaSiBoacrt, toIs eVt Tols Trjs (f)vXrJ9 tov (l)evyovTos 
SiKoi^ovaiV ol 8e TrapaXa^ovres eicrdyovcriu ely to 
SiKaaTypiov, [to. p.€v ejvTos ^iXlcov ■cly eva KcCi 
SiaKocTLOVs, TO, 8' virep \c,Xias ety eva koL TeTpa- 
Kocriovs. ovK e^ecryn 8" ovJTe v6p.OLs ovtc irpo- 
KXrjcrecri ovt^ papTvplais aAA' 97 raty irapa tov 
Bluittjtov )(prj(rO\ju tols ety] rouy e^ipovs ip-fie^Xr]- 
p,evaLS. 8LaiTr]Tai 8" elcrlv ols av e^r}KoaTov €tos 
y. tovto 8e StjXov [el/c Tav dp^ovTcov /cat tcov 
ewcovvpcov. elcTL yap iircovvpLot 8eKa pev oi tSiv 
(pvXav, 8vo Se Kal TeTTapaKovTa ot toiv yXiKimV oi 8' 

ep^iVous : cf. Harpocration (s. v.), tari iiiv ayyos ti eU h ra ypafifiarela 

ra TTpos Tas biicas irlBcvTO fivrjiiovevei tov ayyovs tovtov kqI 

' ApKTTOTeXrjs eV Trj 'hdrjvaiaiv TroKiTeia Koi 'Api<TTO<j>dvris Aavato'W (Rose, 
I^rag-. 415). Photius mentions their special use for holding the evi- 
dence taken before an arbitrator when an appeal was made from him 
to the jury couirts. 

Tois iirl: the reading is rather doubtful. In ch. 58 these persons are 
described as 01 ttjv (f>v\fiv SiKd^ovres, but the meaning of the phrase is 
not clear. In both places, however, they are spoken of in connection 
with the ScaiTTjTal, and it would appear that they were local magistrates 
whose functions were intermediate between the 6iaiTij7-ai and the 
8iKa(TTrjpin at Athens. 

8vo di Kal TfTTapaKovra oi tS>v fjXiKiSiv : the subject of these inavvfioi. 
tS>v rjKiKimv is obscure. Harpocration {s. v. orpaTeia iv tois iiravv/iois) 
quotes the present passage, saying ti's yv f) iv toIs iiravvfiois o-TpaTeia 
Se8rj\aKev 'ApKXTOTiXrjS iv 'Adtjvaiav rroXiTfia \4yav, " flal yap .... 


e^r)fioL iyypa(j)6fievoL Trporepou jxlv els XekevKWfiiva 
ypafXfiarela iveypacpovro, Koi eireypatpopTO avrois 
o T apxwv €0' ov iveypdcprjaav /cat 6 eTrcovvfJLOs 6 

avaypd^ovTai' " Kai fier oXlya " ■)(pSivrai he Tois iiraviiiois . . . crrpaTeveaOai " 
(vtd. infra). He also says {s. v, inwvvp.oC), diTToi elcnv oi iiriivvnoi, 01 
fiev I Toy apiOfiov, a<}) S>v a'l (f)v\m, erepoi he jS" Kal jx, dcj)' S>v ai f/XiKlai irpotra- 
yopevovrai tSiv itoKit&v Kad' eKacrrov fros mo Trj irav /le'xp' |' (Rose, Frag. 
429)- The Etym. Magn. says iwi)vvp.oi,' Sittoi el<nv oJtoi, oi piev Xeyoiuvoi 
TavTjKiKiSiv, Kal cl(ri Siio koi TeaaapaKovTa, ol KaXovvrai Kal Xrj^eiov iirawfioi' 
m Se 8sKa, acf) &v al ^vXai irpoa'T^yopevBrjixav, olov 'Epe^dcis, k.t.X. Some 
writers (e.g. Smith's Dicf. Ant. s.-v. Eponymus; Schomann, Antiquities 
0/ Greece, Eng. Tr. p. 423) explain these forty-two eponymi to be the 
archons under whom the men liable for military service at any given 
time had enlisted. This, however, seems quite impossible, first from 
the way in which these forty-two are spoken of as parallel to the ten 
after whom the tribes were called, who were, of course, a fixed body, 
not merely a group of names which would never be the same for two 
years together. Further, it would be quite unnecessary to lay emphasis 
on the number forty-two. No doubt, as all persons were liable to 
military service from the ages of eighteen to sixty, the men on the roll 
at any given moment could be classified under the forty-two archons of 
the years in which they had respectively been placed on the roll ; but 
for this it would not be necessary to say more than that each man's 
military service was reckoned from the archon under whom he had 
entered upon it. It seems rather that for the purposes of military 
service a cycle of forty-two years was arranged, to each of which a 
name was given, probably chosen, like those of the eponymi of the ten 
tribes, from the heroes of Athenian legendary history. Thus when a 
youth was enrolled in the lists of the tribes and became liable for 
military service, his name was entered on a roll, with the date of the 
year according to the archon and the name of the eponymous hero 
from whom his military service was to be dated. For all official 
purposes, such as the indication of what years were to be called out 
for service on any particular occasion, these names were employed ; 
and this system had the advantage that it could be used for indicating 
dates in advance, to which the ordinary method of dating by the name 
of the archon was inapplicable. This cycle of forty-two years may be 
compared with the indiction-cycle of fifteen years in use under the 
Byzantine empire. Each able-bodied man had to serve through a 
complete round of these forty-two names ; and on reaching the end of 
this cycle, i. e. when he attained the age of sixty, he then had to serve 
one year as a Siomtjttjs or arbitrator. 

o T apxcDV . . . Kal 6 cTTwvvpios : this phrase alone is enough to show 
that the archon and the eponymus cannot be the same, i. e. that the 

K a 

133 API2T0TEA0T2 

rm TTporepco [eVet] SeSiaiTrjKcos, vvv 5' els (tttjXtjv 
\aXKriv avaypd(j)ovTai, koI lararat rj crTrjXrj irpo tou 
fiovXefyrJTjpLov irepl tovs iircovvp.ovs. tov 8e reXev- 
Toiov TWV eTTOovvp-wv Xafi6vT€S 01 ^T€TTJapaKOVTa 
Stavep^ovcriv avrots tols Sialras, kol eirLKXripoixrit/ 
as cKaaros StaiTi^aef kol avayKolov as av eKaa-Tos 
XdxD dialras eKSiaiTdv. 6 yap v6p,os, av Tis prj 
yeuTjraL BiaiT-qrrjs ttJs rjXLKLas avT^ KadrjKovcrrjs, 
artfiov elvai KcXevei, irXrjv kav rvxj) dpxv^ ^PXl^}'^ 
[aXXrflv CKeivcp ra iviavrS rj diroB'qpxav . ovtol 5' 
areXeiy elal p^ovoi. ecmv 8e kcll elaayyeXXeiv el? 
Tovs ^LKaaras iav tis dSiKrjdfj vtto tov SiaiTTjTOv, 

eponymus is not here the same as the archon eponymus. Harpo- 
cration gives the same reading, with the exception that the article 
before iirawfios is absent ; and Rose consequently transposes the 
words, reading o re apxov . . 6 inawnos koI 6 k.t.X. Such an alteration 
is, however, clearly unauthorised. 

deSiaiTTjKas : in Demosthenes (pp. 542, 902) the perfect is SfSiJjTi;- 
Kevat, but the form given in the MS. is preserved here. The MSS. of 
Harpocration mostly read SeSetKTiKas, which Dindorf (after Aldus) 
corrects to 8eSir)Tr]Kas, Rose to SeSuoKriKas. Photius and Suidas give 

TeepiTovs inavvfiovs : i. e. near the statues of the ten eponymous heroes 
of the tribes ; cf. note on ch. 3, aKr/a-av k.t.\. It may be questioned 
whether n-epi (which is written in contracted form, tt') is not a scribe's 
error for napd (n). After these words the phrase koi tov TeXevrdiov has 
been written and cancelled, tov 8i TeKevToiov being then written instead. 

t6v 8e TfXevToiov k.t.\. : i.e. each year the Forty take the list of those 
who are completing the last of their forty-two years of military service, 
and assign to them the duties as hiamyrat. which they are to undertake 
during the following year. 

Kai dvayxaiov k.t.'K. : cf. Pollux (VIII. I26), iireKKripovvTO avTols a'l 
SiaiTai, Kai dn/Jila a^aptiTTO tiS ^17 SiaiT^cravrt Trjv iiriKKr)pa6fA,crav hiavrav. 

diKaards : MS. SiaiTijrar, clearly a confusion with the Siair^roO 
following. The true reading is recoverable from Harpocration {s.v. 
el(rayye\ia), dWrj 8' elaayyfXia eVri Kara tS>v SiatTrjTaV el ydp ns vjr& 
8iaiT>)Tov aSiKrjBelrj, e^fjv tovtov flaayyeWeiv vpos Tois 8iKa<TTds, Kai iXoiis 



Kav Tivos Karayvaxriv arifJLOva-dai KcXevovaiv oi 
vofioi. €(f)e(rLS 5' eort Koi tovtols. x/"*^"'""' ^^ ''oif 
iwavvfiois Koi irpos ras a-rpareias, Koi orav rjXiKiav 
eKTrefiTTOxri irpoypaipova-LV airo rivos ap-)(ovTos kol 
iTTCov^jjfjLov /".Je'x/" TLvoav del a-TpaTeveadaL. 

54- ^XrjpovaL 8e KcuTaa-be ras ap^ds' oSoiroiovs 
^evre, ois TrpoaTeTaKTai Srjp.oo'Lovs ipyaras e^ov<ri 
Tas 680VS iTTiaKevd^eii', kclI XoyuTTas fiexa kou 
(Tvvqyopovs tovtols SeKU, Trpos ovs aTravras dvayKi) 
Tovs ray dp^ds ydp^avTyts \6yov dircveyKelv. ovtol 
yap €i(ri p.6voi toIs virevOvvois Xoyi^6p,evoi koi Tag 
€v6vvas €is TO 8iKaa-Tr]piov elaayovTes. Kav fiev 
TLva KXeiTTOVT i^eXey^coai, kXott^v 01 diKaaTal 
KaTayLVQ}crKov(Ti Kal to yvmadev diroTLveTai ScKa- 
ttXovV iav Se Tiva BS>pa Xa/SovTa einBei^coa-iv koi 
KarayvaxTLV 01 SiKaaTai, Scopcov TLp.a>anv, dTroTiveTai 

ano : SO Harpocration ; in the MS. the a is, by some confusion, 
followed by the sign which is often used to denote the termination at 
of a verb. 

Tivinv : rivos Harpocration. 

54. \oyL(TTas SeKa kai (rvvr)y6povs : Harpocration {s. V. Xoyia-ral) says 
apx^ Tis Trap' 'Adrivalots ovtoi Kakovfiivrj' EiVl Sf top dpidinov SeKa, ot ras eidi- 
vas t5)V diaKTjiifvav exXoyifoi/rat c'v fjnipais TpiaKovTaoTav ras ap)(as airoBavrai 
ot apxovres, . . SieiAexTat jrepi tovtwv 'ApKrroTeXrjs iv tj 'ABrjvalav naiXiTeia, 
tv6a SeiKvvTai Sn 8mcj)epovtri ratv ev6ivwv (Rose, Frag. 406). The Lex. 
rhet. Cantabrig. p. 672, 20, has a quotation professing to be from 
Aristotle, but differing wholly from the present passage ; and as it is 
unlikely that Aristotle would have had two descriptions of the same 
officers in this one treatise, it is probable that the reference is in- 
correct. The passage runs thus, 'AptororeXijy iv rrj 'X6r)vaia>v TroXircia 
ovT<os \iyu' \oyi(TTaX bk aipoivrai Seiea, nap ots SiaXoyi^ovTai iracai ai 
apxal TO. T€ XTju/iara Kal ras yeyevr/iievas Sajravas' koi aXXoi Sexa (Tvvfjyopoi 
otTives trvvavaKpivovfTi. tovtols, kcX oi Tas evdvvas StSovres irapa Tovrots 
avaxplvovTai nparov, ilra i(jiievTai ei's t6 hiKa(TTr]piov, els eva Kal ({>' (Rose, 
Frag. &,&]). 

KaTayiva)(TKov<ri : at first written KaTayivaia-Kovtri in the MS., but the 
superfluous i is cancelled by a dot above it. 


fie /cat TovTO deKaTrXovv av d' aSiKeiu KaTayvmcnv, 
aSiKLOV TLfiaxTLV, oLTTOTiveTaL 8e Tovd' airXovu eav 
[tt/oo Trjs] 6 TrpvTaveias eKTiarj tis, el Se fir], SnrXov- 
rar to {8e) SeKaTrXovv ov ScTrXovTaL. ^ KXrjpovcn 
8e Koi ypafifiaTea tov Kara TrpyTaveicnv KoXovfJ-evou, 
OS t5>v ypap.pxx.ri(av ia-rl KvpLos kol to. ^yjrrij(pL(rfiaTa 
TO. yivofievci ^vXaTret,, kol rdXXa iravra avriypa- 
(jyerai. /cat TrapaKadrjTai rfj ^ovXfji irporepov fiev 
odv ovTos Tjv ^eLpoTOvrjTOS, /cat rovs ivSo^OTarovs 

aSiKiov : this class of actions is not mentioned in the extant orators 
(Dindorf ad Harp. s. v.), but Harpocration mentions it and quotes the 
present passage almo'st verbally, though without referring to Aristotle by 
name. His words are, iarl 8i Svona dixi/r. aTroTiuvrai 8e rovTo dirXovf, 
eav wpb Trjs ff irpvravelas airoBoOij' el Se iifj, SmXovv Kara|3a\Xcrai. Plu- 
tarch (Pericl. 32) mentions it in reference to the charge brought against 
Pericles regarding his expenditure of the public money, "Ayvav de 
TOVTO iiev dcjifTKe tov yjni(j)i(TiiaTos, KpivetrBai 8e tt/v Sikhju typayJAev iv 
hiKatTTois ;(i\ioij kcu irevTaKoiriois, Are kKotttis kqI hiapav evr dSixlov 
^ovKoit6 ns ovofxa^eiv Ttjv bia^iv. It may be suggested, in passing, that 
in the latter passage the number 1500 is a mistake for 501. The 
numeral for I (a) is easily confounded with that for 1000 (a or a), and 
we have several instances of courts composed of a round number of 
hundreds with one additional member, which show that it was the 
usual practice. Courts of 201 and 401 are mentioned in ch. 53, and 
501 is given as the size of the court for trying this particular class of 
cases in the extract from the Lex. rhet. Cantabrig. quoted just above. 
It is evident that Hagnon proposed that Pericles should be tried by 
the regular court, in place of the unusual procedure proposed by 

t6 8e deKairkovv : it seems necessary to insert the 8e, the omission of 
which is easily explicable from the recurrence of the same two letters 
at the beginning of the following word. 

ypap.p,aTea tov KaTa irpvraveiav KaXovfievov : Harpocration (s. v. ypapt- 
fuiTevs) quotes this passage, from tS>v ypafifuneav to ^ovXij, reading, 
hovitwer, ypap,p,aTav iox ypap,p.aTeav. Pollux (VIII. 98) mentions both 
this ypajip.aTevs and the others whom Aristotle describes below, ypafi- 
fiarevi 6 Kara irpvTaveiav KKr)pa6e\s vir6 TrJ! /SovX^r £7rl t^ to ypdjujuara 
0i;XdTT€ii/ Koi TO ^rj^itrpara.' Ka\ eTepos eir\ tovs vonovg vit6 t^s ^otiX^j 
XnpoTovovpevos, 6 8' viro toC Sij^ou aipeBets ypaiip.aTevs avayivuMTKei tS 

re 8))ficj) Koi. Tg ^ov\jj (Rose, Frag: 399). 


Kol TnaTOTOLTOvs [e'xei/ojoroj'oi;!'* KoiX yap iv rals 
(TT-qXais Trpos rats crvfifxa)(^lais kol Trpo^evlfaijs kol 
iroXiTeiaLS ovtos auaypa(f)eTai' vvv Se yeyove kXt]- 
pcoTos. KXr]pov(rt 8e kol eVi row vofiovs erepov os 
TrapaKadrjTai ry ^ovAjj, /cat avTLypa(l>eTaL kou ovtos 
•jravras. ^eipoTOvel 5e /cat 6 brjfios ypap-fiarea top ava^ 
yvacrofxevov avTW koL Ty ^ovXfj, /cat ovtos ovSevos 
ecTTi Kvpios aAAa tov avayvStvai. \ KXrjpol de kol 
lepoiroiovs deKU, tovs iirl Ta eKdvfiaTa KaXovfxevovs, 

maroTaTovs : the MS. appears to read an-toTOTarovr, though the 
third, fourth, and fifth letters are open to question. It is of course 
impossible that this should be the genuine word, and it is simplest to 
emend it by omitting the a. koi is written in the MS. in its usual 
contraction ; and it appears possible that the a may be due to som^e 
confusion with the second letter of Kai in its uncontracted form. The 
original from which this MS. was copied would haye had (caiTrio-Toro- 
Tovs, which the copyist has reproduced as KaiturTOTarovs. 

noKiTfiais : the fourth and fifth letters in the MS. are doubtful, but 
it does not appear possible that the word can be other than that here 
read, though the use of it, apparently as indicating public measures in 
general, is strange, and only partly paralleled by Demosthenes {De 
Cor. p. 254), o *iXijr7ros i^rjKaBr) . . . .Tjj de TTokiTfia Koi rois ■^r]^i<T)i.a<ri . . 
VTT ifiov. 

iiri Toiis voyiovs erepov: the MS. reading apparently is ejri Touroir 
v[o]ixov erepov, which of course must be a scribe's blunder. The ofificial 
mentioned is no doubt the same as the second of those named by 
Pollux ; but it is a question whether he is not also the same as the 
avTiypa<f)evs mentioned by Pollux and Harpocration. Pollux (i.e.) says 
aVTiypa(fievs irporepov iiev alperos, aidis 8e KXrjparos ^i> Koi navra dvre-^ 
ypd(j)eTO wapaKadrjfievos rfj fiovkfj. The latter words correspond exactly 
with Aristotle's description, and it seems probable that Pollux has 
described the same official twice over. Harpocration quotes Aristotle 
as speaking of the avTiypa(j)evs t^s fiovKrjs in this treatise, and the 
use of the word avTiypaxperai makes it practically certain that this is 
the passage referred to. Aristotle, however, appears not to have given 
him that title, but to have spoken of him merely as Irtpos ypaiifuvrevg 
OS • . • dvnypd(j>fTai, 

■ndvras : sc. vo/iovs, which confirms the enjendation em Toir vdjiovs at 
the beginning of the sentence. 

iepmowis : the Etym. Magn. quotes this description, as far as nXiju 

136 AP12T0TEA0TS 

[oi] TO, T€ [fiav]TevTa lepa dvovaiu, Koiv tl KaXXieprj- 
aai Serj KaXXiepovcn fxera twv fiavTe\cov\. KXrjpol 
Se Kol erepovs SeKa, tovs kut iviavTOV KaXovfievovs, 
ot dvcrlas re rivas dvovai [/cat ray 'n-evT€\Tripi8as 
airaaras SioiKOvaiv wXrjv Ylavadrjvaicov . \dcr\ 5e] 
TrevTerrjpldef, fiia [fiei/ rj ei]y ArjXov {ecm fie kcu 

Uavadrjvatiovj almost verbally, and refers to this treatise as its au- 
thority, but it makes Ho mention of the two different boards of ten of 
which Aristotle speaks, combining the functions of both under one 
head (Rose, I<'rag: 404). 

TO T« fuxvTfVTO. Upo. Bvovoriv : the E. M. reads to re iiavTeviiara Upo- 
Birova-i (ofte MS. Upo6vTov<n), but the reading of the MS. here is 
confirmed by the Lex. Demosth. Fatm. (p. 11, ed. Sakk.) which has 01 
TO liavreijiara lepa diovaiv. It is not impossible that fiavTevra here is a 
slip for jxavTeviiwra ; otherwise Upa is of course the substantive and 
irnvrevra means ' appointed by oracle.' 

wevTerripiSes : Pollux (VIII. 107) also enumerates these festivals in 
connection with the Upoiroioi, whom he describes thus, Sexa ovres oSrot 
cdvov dvtrias ras ^vop,i(oiievas Kai} TrcvTfTripiSas ^8ioi(co0(ri), rf/v els ArfKov, 
Tqv iv Bpavp&vt, Tr]V tSiv 'HpaieKelav (MS. 'HpaKKeiSaii'), ttjV 'EXfUO-iM. 
The corrections (indica:ted by the brackets) made by Rose are justified 
by the text of Aristotle, though it would be preferable to insert rds 
before nevrfTtipiSas, which would help to explain the omission of the 
phrase in the archetypal MS.' Of the four festivals mentioned, that at 
Delos (called ds A^Xof from its involving a 6eapLa from Athens to the 
island) is the one of which the re-establishment is recorded by Thucy- 
dides (III. 104). Delos being subject to Athens, the Athenians took 
over the management of the ancient Delian festival. The festival of 
Artemis at Brauron is mentioned by Herodotus (VI. 138), and was the oc- 
casion of the curious ceremony in which the Athenian girls imitated bears 
and were denominated apxroi. Of the Heracleia little is known. Har- 
pocration (s. v.) refers to Demosthenes {De Fals. Leg. pp. 368, 379), and 
adds TToXXmi' SvTiov rSiv Kara ttjv 'Attik^v 'HpaKKelav, viJv hv 6 Ar]no(r6evt]s 
fivrjiiopevoi rJTOi rS>v iv Mapadavi rj t&v cv Kwoo-apyet* Tavra yap judXio'T-a 
81a. Tiiirjs elxov 'Adrjvaiot. That it was a festival held ordinarily outside 
Athens is clear from the passages in Demosthenes, in which the fact of 
its being held within the walls is mentioned as a sign of the alarm 
caused by the fear of invasion. The festival at Eleusis is, as the 
words of Aristotle show, the great Panathenaea, the special feature of 
which was the procession with the TrcTrXor of Athena to the temple of 
Demeter at Eleusis and thence back to the Acropolis. 


e7r[rajr7?/)ty ivravda), Sevrepa 5e Bpavpcovia, rpiTr] 
[5e 'HpoLKXeija, TerapTr] 8e to, '^XevaivaSe Tlava- 
drjvaia' kou tovtcov ov8ep.La ev tS avrm eyyifueTai]. 
. . 5e TTpoKeirai . . ais . . . eVi K.r)(l)L(ro(l)aivT09 
ap')(ovTos. KXripovaL 8e kol els ^aXaplva ap^ovra, 
Kcu ely nei[/3afje'a 8y]p^p^ov, oX rd re Aiovva-ia ttol- 
ovcTL eKarepcodL kol ^opr^yovs KaQicrTaaiV kv 2aAa- 
[/xti'tj 5e /cat TO [6Vjo/ia tov oipypvTos dvaypa(j)€Tai. 

55- A.vTai fiev odu at dp^al KXrjpcorai re kol 
Kvpiai Ta>v yeLprj^p.4va)v ^Trpayp-dr^cov ela-iv. 01 5e 
KaXovp,€POi ivvea ap^ovres, to fxev i^ dp^rjs ov 
TpoTTOv KadiaTavTO ^e'lprjTai -qdrj' vvi>j 8e KXrjpovaLv 

iv T(S avTa iyyiverai : the reading is a little doubtful. The MS. 
apparently at first had ev rat avrmi yiverat, but above the beginning of 
the last word an addition has been made in the same hand which 
appears to be the letters iv. If the reading is correct, iv t» air^ 
presumably means ' in the same place.' It might conceivably be 
taken to mean ' in the same year,' but against this conjecture it may 
be noticed that the Delian festival, according to the date given by 
Thucydides (/. c), was re-established in the third year of an Olympiad, 
which is also the year of the great Panathenaea ; and presumably it 
continued to be celebrated in the same year afterwards. The Heracleia 
appears from the passages in Demosthenes also to have fallen in the 
third year of the Olympiad, in the month Hecatombaeon ; but the date 
of the Brauronia is unknown. 

em Kricj)tcro(l>S)i'Tos apxopTos: i.e. 329 B.C. The sentence is hopelessly 
mutilated, partly through a lacuna in the papyrus, partly through the 
writing having been obliterated in the middle of the column, where 
the papyrus was folded. The letter before ais appears to be either <^ 
or p ; if it is the former, the word is probably ypatfiais, and the sentence 
may have stood, tovto 8e irpoKeiTai ypa^ais rais iiri K. HpxovTos, the 
meaning being that public regulations were made concerning those 
festivals at the date mentioned. But it is impossible to restore the 
passage with certainty. The note of time is, however, useful, as 
showing that the Hokireiai was composed (or at any rate revised, as 
this is clearly an incidental note which might have been added after 
the main bulk of the work was written) in the last seven years of 
Aristotle's life. 

55. iipriTai, rj8ri : see chapters 3, 8, 22, 26. 


decTfioBeTas fiev e^ koL ypafifiarea tovtols, eri h 
apypvTa kol ^acri[Aea] koL iroXe^ap^ov, Kara fiepos 
i^ eKOLCTTris (jivXrjs. doKifid^ovrai 8' ovtol Trpcorov 
fi€v iv TTJ ^fiovXffj Tols 0, irXrjv tov ypafifiarecos, 
ovTos S" iu 8i.Ka(rTrjpLa> fiovov mairep oi aXXoi ap\ov- 
[rey] (7r[ai/rey yap /cat] 01 KXrjpooTol kol ol X^''P^~ 
TovrjTol BoKLpLaaOevres ap^ovaLv), ol 5' ivvea \ap- 
■)(\ovTes [eV] re rfj ^ovXfj kcu ttoXlv eV hiKaaTrfpicp. 
Kol irporepov p.ev ovk r/p-^^ev ovt\j,v aJ7ro8oKip,a(r€L€v 
7] fiovXr], vvv 8' e(f)€(ri9 iariv els to 8iKaaTr]pLov, kul 
TOVTO KvpLov iaTi rrjs 5oKi[fiaJo'/ay. e\Tr€^p(OTCo<TLV 5' 
[Col. 28.] orav 8oKip-d^(ocnv, Trpcorov /xev ris croi irarrjp Kaiirodev 
T&v 8rjpcov, KoX Tis Trarpos irarrjp, koX tls p.r]Tr]p, kul 
TLS p-TjTpos Trarrjp koL iroOev twv 8r]pMV p,€Ta 5e ravra 
el etTTiv avTcp AttoXXcov Trarpaos kol Zeuy epKelos, 
KOL TTOV ravra ra lepa icrriv, eira rjpia ei kartv Kat 

QeaixoBfTas . . . e'l eKaorijs i/)vXns ; Schomann (Ant. of Greece, Engj 
Tr. p. 410), following Sauppe (De creatione archontum), suggests that 
the nine archons were chosen from nine of the tribes selected by lotj 
the tenth electing none. The present passage shows that the tenth 
was compensated by having the election of the Secretary to the 

wpSiTov )ifv K.T.\.: a summary of the passage which follows is 
given by Pollux (VIII. 85, 86), eVaXeiTo 8e rir Bea-fioBirStv avaKpuris, el 
'ti.6rpiaioi ela-iv iKarepadev ix rpiyovias Kal tAk Srjuov ir66ev fcai el 'AiroKXai) 
fOTiv avTois narpaos koI Zeis epxeios Kal el tovs yoveas eS jroiovai (cat 
el ecTpdrevvTai mrep Trjs Trarpidos Kal el to Tijafp,a ecrriv avTois (Rose, Ffag, _ 
374). There is a similar passage in the Lex. rhet. Cantabrig. (p. 670, 
14), in which Aristotle is referred to by name (Rose, Frag. 375). 

irarpos iTaTj]p : MS. iraTqp irarpos, but a dot and a line placed above 
each of these words indicate that they are to be transposed. 

ijpia: cf. Dem. in Eubul., p. 131 9) oikcioi Tives elvai fiaprvpovaiU 
aira ; iravv ye, irpStrov p,ev ye Terrapes ave^iol, eir'^iaSovs, eid' oi ras 
aveyjrias Xa^ovres avTmv, eira (pparepes, eiT ' AnSWavos narpaov Kal Aios 
epKeiov yevv^Tai, el6' ols ijpla Tavra, elff ol hr)p,6Tai k.tX. The present 
passage confirms the emendation ijpla for iepa in Dinarch. contr. 
Arist. p. 107, avaKpivaVTes tovs tSiv Koivav ti peWovTus SioiKeiv, ris eoTOi 


TTOv ravra, eireLTa yovias €t e5 Troiei [/cai] to. riXri 
reXel, koL ras aTpariias el ea-TpdrevTai. ravra 8' 
avepcoTTjcras, /c[a]Aei, (f)r]ariv, rovrcdv rovs txaprvpas4 
iireiBav fie Trapda-xrjrai rovs fidprvpas eTrepcord, 
rovrov ^ovXerai ris Karijyopeiv ; kScv jxev y rLS 
Karrjyopos, dovs Karrjyopiav Kal diroXoyiav, ovrco 
StScocTLV iv p.€v ry fiovXfj rrjv einxeiporovLav, kv 8e 
rm SiKaa-rrjpio) rrjv ■>^ri(pov lav h\ fj.r]8els ^ovXrjraL 
Karrjyopelv, ev0vs Sidcocri rrjv -^rjcftov Kal irporepou 
p.€v eiy eVe/3aAXe r^v [^J^^ov, uvu 8' dudyKr] wdvrasi 
eari oe yjrrjCpL^eadat Trepl avra>v, tva dv ris Trovrjpos 
iav aTraXXa^j] rovs Karrjyopovs eVi rols 8iKaarais 
yeurjrai rovrov d7ro8oKifida-ai. 8oKifjiaa-6€v 8e rovrov 
rov rpoTTOv, fiaSi^ovari irpos rov Xidov v(f)' [w] rd 
rap.L€ia eariv, i(j) ov Kal 01 8iaLrr)ral opLoaavres 
airoipaivovraL ras 8tairas Kal 01 p.dprvpes i^ofivvvrai 
ras fiaprvpias. dvafiavres 8' eVt rovrov op-vvovariv 
SiKalcos dp^eiv Kal Kard rovs vofiovs, Kal 8apa p,r) 
X-rj^lrea-Oai rrjs dp^rjs evcKa, Kav ri Xdficoa-iv dv- 

Tov idiov rponov, el yoveas ev iroiei, « ras irrpareias vnep T^y TroXeas 
cfrrpaTevTat) el iepa irarpaa eirnv, el ra TeXrj reXei, 

fioiXeTai : MS. ^ovXevrm. 

irpos t6v Xidov : cf. Harpocration (s.v. \idos), eoUaa-i S' 'ASrivaloi irpbs 
Tivl Xida Tois opKovs noieiadm, its 'Apio'ToreXrjs ev rrj 'A6r]vdla>v TroXtreia 
(Rose, F-rag: 377). 

Tapiela : MS. Tapi. 

opvvovo-iv K.T.X. : the passage in Pollux (VIII. 86) quoted above 
continues ejrtjpaTa S' i; /3ouXij, &p.vvov &' odroi irpos tij ffaaiXeico o'toS, eVi 
Tov Xidov v<f>' a TO rapiela, (rup^vXa^eiv tovs vopovs Km prj dapoSoKrjaeiv ^ 
Xpv(rovv dvdpiavTa anonirai. elra iinevBev els aKpoiroXiv aveXBovres apvvov 
Taird. Further, in the excerpts from Heraclides vepl noXireias 'Adtj- 
vaiav {cf. Rose, ed. 1886, Frag. 611), which was evidently an epitome 
of Aristotle, we have the sentence ela\ be koI iwia apxovres OeapoBerai, 
01 boKipaaBevres opviovai SiKaias ap^eiv fcai Sapa pri Xrjyjfeadai ij dv&pidvTa 
Xpvcoiv dvadijireai. 


SpiavTU avaOrjaeiv ■)(pvaovv. evrevdev 8' bfJLoa-avTfs 
els OLKpoTToXiv ^aSl^ovaLV Kcu iraXLV €K€l ravra 
ofivvova-i, Koi fJieTo, ravra ely r^f apxrjv daipxovTai. 
56. Kap^fiavovcn 8e koX irapiBpovs o re ap^cov 
KoX b fiacriXevs koX 6 iroXepiapyps 8vo eKarepos ov9 
iav fSovXjjTai, /cat ovtol BoKLfxa^ovTaL iv t<S StKaa- 
TTjpico irplv irapeSpeveiP, Ka\ evdvvas 8i,d6a(nu iirav 
irapeBpevacoaLv. koX 6 p.ev ap-)(cov evOvs elcreXdcov 
Trpmrov fxev KrjpvTTei oaa tls et^c irpiv avrov 
elaeXdelv ety rrjv ap)(^v, ravr exeiu Kal Kpareiv 
p-^Xpi- oi'PXV^ reXovs. eTreira ^opyjyovs TpaycoSois 
KaOiarrjai rpels ef aTrdvTcou 'Adrjuauav tow irXov- 
(ricoTaTovs' Trporepov 8e Kal Ka)iJim8ols KadicrTJ] 
Trevre, vvv 8e tovtois at (pvXal (pepovcriu. eTreira 
TrapaXajSmv tovs xoprjyovs tovs evTjveyfievovs vtto 
Twv (pvXau ety ^lovvarLa av8paaiv Kal Traicrlv Kal 
Kcopa)8o[t]s, Kal els Qapy^Xia au8pdaiu Kal iraialv 
(ilal 5' ol fikv ety ALOvva-ia Kara (})vXds, els <5e) 
QapyrjXia Sveiv (pvXalv els' irape^ei 8' ev //,[e)o€t] 

56. \afi^avovcn . . . TrapcSpciiraxnv : Harpocration (j'.Z'.rrdpfSpos) quotes 
this passage as from Aristotle iv Tjj 'AOrjvaiav woXireta, with the excep- 
tion that he (or his MSS.) omits the words koi 6 jSao-iXeus (Rose, Frag. 
389). That the king archon had two rrapeSpoi as well as the archon 
and the polemarch is confirmed by Pollux (VIII. 92). 

TreVre : in the fifth century the number of competitors admitted in 
comedy was three, as in tragedy ; but at the beginning of the fourth 
century it was raised to five (Haigh, Aiiic Theatre, pp. 30, 31). koi naiaiv : these are the choruses for the dithyrambic 
competitions, in which the tribes competed against one another. 

eapyi'i'hia : the dithyrambic chorus for men at this festival is 
mentioned by Lysias (De Dono, p. 161), and that for boys, as well as 
the fact that two tribes combined to provide the choruses at this 
festival, by Antiphon {De Chor. p. 142). As to the duties of the 
archon in respect of the Thargelia, Pollux (VIII. 89) says d 8e apx<m> 
dtaTiBrjin fifv Aiovvaia xal QapyrjKia /icrd rS>v eVt/ieXijraiv, and the Lex. 


eKarepa tcov ^vXwv tovtois), ras duTiSocreis rroiei /cat 

ray orKTqyjreLS eia^ayec iaju tis rj Xe r] 

TT^jOoy] erepov TavTrjv ttjv XriLTOvpy\l,av\ 

[ejre^av XrfLtovpyiav kol tS>v ^povcov avrS . . . 

eias jxr) i^ eV?; p,r] yeyovivac Set yap 

Tov To'is TraL^ali' xopvjy^^^''''^ virep TeTTapd^KOvjra 
€TT] yeyovevai. KaOia-Trjai 8e kol eiy ArjXov X'^PV~ 
yoi/s KOL dp^iepeco^v tov rjw TpiaKovTopico r^ tovs 
TfLdeovs ayovTL. irofiirmv 8' eTrepeXelTO [rijy re] tS 
'AaKXrjTTiS yivofievqs orav o'lKovpcocn pv^ajrai, kol 
Trjs AiovvaLcoi' Ta>v [/ieycTJAoJi' p-erd tcov eTripeXrjTav, 
ovs irpoTepov pev 6 Srjpos ix^i'POTOvei SeKa ovTas, 
[/cat Taj ety tt/v Tropir^v dvaXcopaTa Trap' avTwv 
^i'[eyAcjoj', vvv 5' iva Trjs ^^^[^y iKojaTrjs KXrjpol 
KOL 8[8cocrtv eiy ttjv KaTaaKevrjv eKUTOv pvds. eVt- 
/ieX[errat] 81 Koi ttjs ety QapyyXia kol ttJs tS Ail 
Tco ^ooTrjpi. fitoi/cei fie Kat tov dyaiva tw^v AlovIv- 
(Tixov ovTOS KOL Twv Qapyr]Xtcov. eopTcov pev ovv 
eTTipeXeLTaL tovtcov. ypacpal fife /cat 5]i/cat Xay^d- 

rhet. Cantabrig. (p. 670, 4) e)(ei 8e imfieKeiav p^opijyoij Karaa-Trjirm els 
Aiopi(rta Koi QapyrjKia, imiieKeiTai, be kol tSiv els ArjXov Kai tSiV aK\ax6(Te 
ireforofJieiKov 'Ad^vr}dep -xop^" (Rose, Frag. 381). 

Tar (TKfi-\jfeis : for rds the abbreviation for rrjs seems to have been 
written first, and then an a has been inserted without the corrector 
perceiving that another o- was necessary, so that the words stand 
in the MS. as Tao-xiji/retj. 

\r]iTovf>ylav : written XeiTovpyiav, but corrected to Xijit-, which is 
the form employed elsewhere in the MS. Cf. ch. 27 and note. 

del yap k.tX. : Harpocration (s. v. on vofios) refers to this passage, 
OTL vo/jios iariv imep p,' eTij yev6p,evov \opj]yelv iraia-Xv AiVx""?* Te ev t<S 
Kara TLp.apxpv (j)i]a-'i Koi 'ApioroTeXTjs ev rij 'A6r)vaiav jroXiTcia (Rose, 
Frag. 431). 

ypa<t>ai 8c k.t.X. : a summary of the following passage is given by 
Pollux (VIII. 89), SiKoi Se Trpos avTov Xayxavovrai. KOKaireas, napavoLas, 


vovrai TTpos avrov, as avaKpivas eiT [eiy SiJKacrrrjpioi' 
elcrdjj^eij, vecov KUKOxrecos {avrai 84 elaiv d^rjfiLoi tw 
^ovXop.€vcp SFttBAcJetJ'), 6p(j>avS»v /c[a/ccBjo-e£BS' {clvtul 
8' eicrl Kara t5>v iirLTpoircov), iiriKXrjpov Ka/c(B(re[&)y] 
{aivTai 8e elcri Kara \twv] eTrcTpoTrcov kcu tcov crvuoi- 
KovvTcov), o'lkov 6p(j)avLK0v KaKcocrecos (eltri 8e kol 
[avTaL Kara tcovJ iTrtTpo^Trjcov) , irapavoias, idv tls 
OLTiaTai TLva irapavoovvra r^a iavTOv KTrjpLara 
aWoXkvv^ai^, els SarrjTcov aXpeaiv, idv tls firj d^Xy 
[/cloii/a Wd. ovra v€fi€(rdai^yels eTnTpoirrjs KardtrTaatv, 
els eTnrpoTrrjs 8ia8iKaaiai', el ^TrXeloues rrjs avrrjs 
6eXov(r\Lv eiriTpoTrov avrov iyypd^ai, KXrjpcov koX 
eiriKXripcov eTn^SiKaa-iai. eVt/tieAeirjat 8e kou t&v 
^pcf^avav Kal rav eTriKXrjpav koX tcov yvvaiKmv 
ocrai av TeXevyrrja-avTos tov dvSp'^os o-k^ItttcoIv- 
TaL Kveiv Kal Kvpios iart rois dSiKovaiv eTn^dXlXeiv 
^T^fxiav rj dyeiv ety] r)) 8iK(j^Tri\pLov . pacrdoi 8e 
Koi Tovs o'lKovs Twv 6p(f)avS)v Kal TCOV eTrtfKXi^pcov] 

a Kal 8^aT7]JTris yevTjTai Kal ra aTrori/A^/tara 

Xap^dv^eij, av p. . . [fii]5a)o-i tols vraicrlv 

eis SaTrjTmv atp€<nv, eVirpoTrijs 6p(f>avZv, imTpoirav KaTaardcreis, KKr/pav 
KOL €7riK\T]pQiv eTTiStKao'iai. eVtjLteXeirat 8e Kal rav yvvaiKoiv at hv dymo'tu 
iir dvSpds reXevrij Kveiv, Ka\ Toiy diKovs fKpiadoi tS>v 6pif>avS)V (Rose, 
Frag. 381). Under the head of eir ifn^avav KaTaaratrui Harpocration 
says, 6 bk 'ApiororeXijj iv Trj 'Adrjvaiav TroXireig. npbs rbv apj^ovrd cfyr/o-i 
\ayxdve<Tdai TaiTrjV ttjv biKqv, rhv 8c avaKpivovra ela-dyeiv els to diKaa-rripiov 
(.Frag. 382). 

eis haTTjxav alpia-iv : Harpocration explains the phrase, and refers to 
Aristotle as using it iv rfi 'ABrivaiav noKiTua. The Lex. rhet. Cantabrig. 
quotes Aristotle nearly verbally, fVi tS>v btaveiiovrav to. Koivd tutiv, as 
'ApioTOTfXi;s eV r^ 'A6r)vai<av noXireia, SiKai Xay^dj/oyTat irpos top apyovra 
aXXai Tivh Kal fis 8aT7)TSj» alpea-iu, OTav p^ 6e\r] Koiva ra ovra vipeaSai 
(Rose, Frag. 383). The MS. reads SiaiTTjrav, but these quotations 
make it practically certain that it is merely a scribe's blunder. 


Tov (tItov ovtos elcTTrpoLTTei. KOI ofSroy fjiev ovu 

57- [0 8ej jSacrtXeiiy irpmrou ix€v fiva-TrjpLcoi' 
e7rt)U,eAet[rai fiera tcov iTriiJLeXrjTcov ouy] 6 Stj/i'^os 
€-)(jeLpOT6v€i, 8vo pev i^ 'Adrjvaiwv UTravTcov, eva 
5' [Ey/ioATTtSwy, eva\ 5e Y>.r]p^Kco\v. eiretTa 
Aiovvacav tcou^ eiri Arjvauow ravra 8' Icttl .... 
[ravTT^j'] pilv ovv Trop/wrjv Koivfj TripTTOvcTLV o re [Col. 29.] 
fiaaiXevs kol ol i7rtp.€Xr]Tat,' tov Se dycova dtari- 
6r](Tiu 6 jSacrtAeuy. ridrjaL 8e /cat roiis rSv Xap- 
■7ra8cov aycovas airavTas' My 5' cTroy eiTreiv kal 
ray irarpiovs dva-ias 8lolk€l ovtos waaas. ■ypa(f)al 
Se Xay^auourai Trpos avTov acre^Se/ay, Kav ti? 
lepcoavvrjs dpL(pi.o-firjTy TrpoaTipa' [SiaSiJ/ca^et 8e 

(TiTov. Harpocration (s.v.) says (tItos KoKe'irm fj biSofievrj wp6(roSo9 (Is 
Tpo<j)riv Tois yvvat^lv rj ToTr op(pavols, ms e| aXKav fiadeiv ccrn Kal ek tov 
'SoKaivos a a^ovos Ka eK Trjs 'ApioToreXous 'ABrjvaicov TroXireins (Rose, 
Frag. 384). As women and children were under the archon's special 
care, it is tolerably certain that this is the passage referred to, but there 
is nothing in the words of Harpocration to suggest how to fill up the 
lacuna consistently with the visible remains. 

57. 'O Se ^aa-tXevs . . . Kij/jucmv : quoted by Harpocration, s.v. iwi- 
fieXtjTqs Tmv fjLva-Trjpimv (Rose, Frag. 386). The MSS. of Harpocration 
insert e| before 'E-vfiokinhav and Ik before Kr/pvKav, but the latter is cer- 
tainly not in the present MS. and therefore presumably not the former. 

Aiovvcriav twv inl Arivaiiov : Pollux (VHI. 90) says 6 8e fiaaiKfis 
fivcTTripitov JTpoea'TriKe jjiCTa rmv imfieXriTSiv Kal Arjvalav Kal aymvav twv 
«V1 Xa/iTrdSt, Kal to Trepl ras iraTpLovs 6v(rias Sioikei (Rose, Frag. 385)- 

ypa^aX hi k.t.X. : the passage of Pollux just quoted gives a summary of 
the present section, S/xai 8e irpos airov Xayxavovrai da-efieias Kal iepaxrvvrjs 
aficj>i<r^riT^(Tea>s. Kal tois yev€(n Kal vols Upevcri (MSS. lepois) naaLv airos 
SiKofei, Kal Tcis TOV (povov Sixas els"Apfiov itdyov dtrayei Ksxi tov a-re^avov 
dirodefievos trvv avTois Siicdfei. npoayopeiei 8e to'is iv alTia aTrex^o'dai 
fivcrTrjpiwv Kal Tcbv aXKcov vofiiiuav. diKa^ci Be Kal ray Tav d-^vxtov SUas. 
The Lex. Seg. (p. 219, 14) quotes verbally from ypacpai to Trpos tovtov, 
though without acknowledging the source (Rose, Frag. 385). 

Ttpocmiia : the reading in the MS., which is very faint, rather resem- 
bles Trpos Tiva, but it seems better to follow the quotation in the Lex. Seg. 

144 API2T0TEA0T2 

/cat Tols yeueai kou toIs lepeva-i ras diJ.(j)L(T^rjTr}(reLS 
TOLS wrep lTan> yejpcov airdaas ovtos. Xay^dpovrai 
Be Kol at Tov (jiovov BUat irdcrai irpos tovtov, 
KoiX 6 wpoayopevcov elpyecrdai tSsv vofiipxou oiiTOS 
ia-Tiv. elal [5e (pouovj Slkui kcu rpavfiaros' av 
fiev eK irpovoias diroKTeivrj, eyyp^a^eTaij ev 'hpeico 
iraycp, kcu ^apfiaKou iav diroKT^ivr) 8ovs, kol 
TTvpKaids' ^rav^ra 8' rj ^ovXrj /xova SiKoi^ei' rav 
8' aKovaicav KcCl ^ovXevaecos Kav oIkcttju (XTroKTeivrj 
TLS rj fjLCTOiKou ^ ^^vov, [eV T^ eTri Ilja^XX^aSlco' idv 
5' diroKTelvai fiev tls ofioXoyfj, (pfj 8e Kara, tovs v6- 
/JLOVS, o^LOVJ fioixov Xa^mv rj eV woXefiq) dyvorjcras r] 
iv adXcp dycovi^ofJLivos, to^vtco eV tS eVi] AeA^w'tm 
Slkcl^ovo-iv idv 5e (f>evya)i/ (pvyrjv mv al8e(ris icmv 

iirdtras oStos : omitted in the Lex. Seg. 

av fiev eK npovoias k.tX. : Pollux (VIII. 117) evidently draws from 
this passage. "Apeios jrdyos' iSUa^e 8e (f)6vov Kal Tpavfiaros ex irpovoias 
Koi iTvpKaias Kal cjiapfidKav idv ns airoKTcivrj hois. 

raiv 8' aKov<ria>v Ka\ /SouXeiJo-etor : Harpocration {s. V, ini IlaXXaSib)), 
hiKaiTTr)pi6v i(TTiv outo) Ka\oifi(vov, as Kal ' ApuTTOTfXrjs iv 'Adrivatav 
noXiTfia, f'v a SiKd^oviriv dKov(rLov (j>6vov Kal ^ouXeucrecos 01 itpirai (Rose, 
Frag. 417). The i^hai are also mentioned in this connection by 
Hesychius and Eustathius, but Aristotle does not appear to have 
noticed them, unless the MS. is faulty here. Pollux too (VIII. 118) 
does not refer to them. Harpocration also refers in another place 
(s. V. (3ouXeuo-fQ)s) to Aristotle as stating that trials of this description 
took place in the Palladium (Rose, Frag. 418). 

ern AeX^iWo) : Harpocration (s. v.), hiKd^ovrai S ivravBa oi o/ioXo- 
•yoJi'Tfs fiiv direKTOvevai, SiKaias 8e irenon]Kevai tovto \iyovT€s, as Atj/io- 
irBevrjs iv tm Kar Apia-TOKparovs StjXoi Kal 'ApioTOTeXjjr iv rfi 'Adrjvaiav 
mXireia (Rose, Frag. 419). Pollux (VIII. 119), Suidas, Eustathius, 
eU., say substantially the same. 

ai8«ns : some correction has been made in the MS., but it is 
not clear what is intended. It appears to be a <t, written above the 
line over the fi; but it may be meant for a p, in which case the corrector 
has altered the rare word atSecris into one more familiar to him, alpeaks, 
which, however, makes nonsense of the passage. The corresponding 


[atrial/ TrpocrXd^rfj Kreivai 7/ Tpwa-al riva, tovtco 
S" iv ^peaTTOL 8LKa^ov\_(TL' Koi 6 fiev aTToAoyJetrai 
Trpoa-op/JLicrafjLevos Iv irXoico, ^LKa^ovat 8' ol XciyovTes 
Ta\yTa e^eVatJ ttA^i' rSiv eV 'Apeico irayco ytyvo- 
p.iv(ov' elcrdyeL 8' 6 fiacnXew koL SiKci^o^vaiv] 
. . at[o]i Koi vTralOpLoi. kcu 6 ^aaiXevf orav 
SiKaQ] TrepLaipelrai top aTe(f)avou. 6 8e ttju alrtav 
€)(cov Tov p.€v aXXov yfiovov elpyeraL tcov lepav kolI 
ov8eis Trjv a[tri]ai' S^vvarac ejfx^aXelu avrS' Tore S" 
ety TO lepov elaeXdcov diroXoyelTai, orav 8e [tIis 
etTrrj tov iroLrjaavTa rw 8pdcravTi Xay^^avet. 8iKd^€L 
8 o jSacriAeuy /cat oi ^uAojSatrtAety koi Tas tcov 
d^vxcov KOL tS)v aXXav ^cocov. 

58. 'O 8e 7roX4p.ap^os TroieiTai 6v(rias Trjv Te 

phrase in Demosthenes {in Arisiocr. p. 645), where he is explaining 
the character of the court iv ^pearTol, runs cV aKovaim <j)6vco 7re0euya>r, 
lifjirai Tap eK^aKovTav airov ^Sea-fiivav. The meaning therefore is that 
the party has committed an involuntary homicide, but has to remain 
in exile during the resentment of the relatives of the deceased. On 
their relenting he might return (which would not be the case if the 
homicide was intentional, under which circumstances there would not 
be atSeo-ts), but at the time supposed they have not yet relented and 
therefore he is still in exile. 

0peaTTOi : MS. (ppcarov. 

e<peTai : cf. Harpocration {s. v. l^iraC), ol biKa^ovres ras i^ oljiaTi 
Kp'ureis c!r< KoXXadira Kot eirt Upvraveia Koi inl Aek<JM'i<o koI iv ^peaTTOi 
c^erai efcaXoCwo. 

ircpiaipclTai tov ariifiavov : cf. the quotation from Pollux (VIII. 90) 
given above, in note on ypatpai 8e k.t.X. 

TTjv alnav : the reading is doubtful, as the abbreviation for rijs seems to 
have been written in place of that for ttiv, and the letters are very faint. 

orav 8c ns eiirrj : the reading is doubtful, as the letters are much 
rubbed, and the sense of the passage remains rather obscure. 

58. 'O de TroXefiapxos k.tX. : Pollux (VIII. 91) paraphrases the 
passage thus, 6 fie iro\eiiapxos 6vei fiiv 'ApTefuBi ayporep^ Koi ra 
'Ewa\ia, Siaridritri fie roi' imTosjiiov dymva tS>v iv iroXefUO cmoBavovrav , 
KCU. To'is irepX 'Ap/ioSiov evayifei. dUai fie jrpbs avTW 'Kayxavovrai /leToiKav, 



Ty 'AprffxtSi Ty ayporepa kolL tw 'lEuvaXim, SiaTidrjcn 
8' dyava tov e7nTd(f)iov toIs TETeXevTrjKoaLV ev rip 
TToXefMcp, Kol 'ApfJLo8i^ /cat 'ApiCTToyeLTOPi evayicTfiaTa 
TTOiei. SUai Se XayyavovraL irpos avrov 'iSiai. fieu at 
re Tols fieroiKOLs kcll toIs IcroreXecn Koi tois tt/jo- 
^euois yiyvofxevai. kol Bel tovtov Xa^ovra kcu 8ia- 
veLfxavra SeKa fiepr], to Xa^ov cKacrTr} ry (f)vXy fiepos 
irpocrBelvai, tovs 5e Tr)v (jyvXr/u SiKa^oUTas ropy] 
SiaiTTjTal^ diroBovvai. avTOS 5' clcrayiL Slkus ras re 
TOV a[7rocrra(r]ioy kou dTrpo(TTa(TL\ov\ Koi KXypcov koX 


6 dpycov TavTa toIs ixeToiKois 6 iroXepiapyos. 

59. Oi Be OecrfiodeTai irpS>TOv fieu tov irpoypa^aL 
TO, BtKacrTypid ela-i Kvpioi tictlv yp-epais Bel BiKa^eip, 
[e7r]e[tra] tov Bovvai tols dp^ais' kuBoti ydp av 
ovToc BaxTLV, KUTa TOVTO yjpwvTaL. eTL Be Tas 

Icrorekaii, irpo^kvav (Rose's addition ^evav is shown by the text of 
Aristotle to be unnecessary), (cai Siavefiei to \axov, iKaarn <j)vK^ n 
fiepos, TO fiev SiaiTTjTois napaBiSovs, elcraymv fie hinas dirocTTacriov, anpoa- 
Ta<Tiov, KKripav p,eToiKav (Rose, Frag. 387). 

''Emakia : this appears to have been altered in the MS. to 'Eyua>, but 
unnecessarily, as the passage just quoted from Pollux shows. 

Toij T-cTeXeuTTjKdo-o' : the MS. prefixes Kai, but it must be a mere 
clerical blunder. 

'Apto-royciVoi'i : MS. Apio-Toyirow, but in ch. 1 8 the more correct form 
is used. 

avToi &' iladyei : Harpocration (s. v. Tr6\epapxos) quotes this passage 
verbally, introducing it with the words 'ApHTTore'X);? 6' ev ttj 'Adr/vaiav 
TToXiTcia Sif^e\6a>v Saa Bioixel 6 iro\e jiap^os, wpos ToOra <jiri<Tiv " aiiTos re 
EiVdyfi . . . . d iroXe/iapxos." The first part, as far as imKKrjpav, is again 
quoted s.v. arroaTamov, with the difference that oStos fie stands in 
place of avT6s re (Rose, Frag. 388). 

59. Oi fie deufioeerai. : Pollux (VIII. 87, 88) quotes the whole of this 
passage almost verbally, as far as to yfrevSofiapTvpia i^ 'Apiiov wdyov, 
and Harpocration (s. v. 6f<Tiio6iTai) says 6 fie 'ApKrroTeXrjs ev rrj 
'ABtjvaiav iroXiTciif Siepxtrai o<ra oStoi itpaTTOvdiv (Rose, Frag, 378). 


elcrayyeXiay elaayyeXXovaiv els tov Srjjjiov kcll tols 
KaTa-)(€LpoTovLas Koi TOLS Tvpo^oXas aTrdaa\s\ daa- 
yova-LV ov\tol\ koX ypa(f)as irapavopxov Kol vofiov /xtj 
eTTiTTjSfiov Oelvai kou irpoebpiKrjv kol iTncrTaTiKrju 
/cat (TTpafriyois evdvvas. elal 8e koI ypa(j)al irpos 
avTovs S)v TrapacTTaais TiOerai,, ^evias koX Scopo^evlas, 
av Tts Satpa 8ovs airo^vyy ttjv ^eviav, kcu (tvko- 
(pavTLas /cat Scopcov /cat ^evSeyypa^rjs kcu yfrevSo- 
KXrjTeias /cat fiovXevaecos /cat dypa<pLOV /cat /iot^eiay. 
elaayovcLV 8e /cat ray So/ct/xacrriaJ? raty dp')(als 
aTraaais /cat royy d.Tre'^rjcpLa-fiepovs vtto twv dr]p.0Tav 
KOL Tag Karayvaxreis [r]ay e/c rrjs ^ovXrjs. elordyovcn 
5e /cat 5i/cay tStay, ip-iropiKas /cat peToXXiKas kol 
SovXcou, dv TLS TOV iXevdepov /ca/cc5y Xeyy. kcu 
eirLKXripovcTL rals dp-)(cus irdvTa SiKaarrfpia ra iSia 
/cat Ta Sr]p.6(Tia' kcu ra avp^oXa ra irpos Tas iroXeis 
ovTOi Kvpovai, /cat ray 5t/cay ray diro tcou crvp,^6Xcov 
elcrdyovai, kol rd -^evSopaprvpia e[^] 'Apetov Trdyov. 

eio-l 8e Koi ypafjial . . . ^eviav : this passage is quoted in the Lex. rhet. 
Cantabrig., being introduced by the words 'Apio-TOTe'\?;r iv rij 'K6t)vaiav 
TToXiTila ^Tjal Trepl tSiv 6e(Tfio6eT&v diaXeyofievos. There is, however, an 
addition, for after bapo^tvlas occur the words ^evias /iep idv ni Karrj- 
yoprJTai ^evos fhai, Siopo^evias 8e iav tis Sapa k.t.X. The repetition of 
the words ^evias and bapo^evias would make it easy to suppose that the 
clause ^tvias . . . Scopo^evias 8e had accidentally dropped out of the 
present MS. of Aristotle ; but Harpocration {s. w. napdiTTaa-ts and 
Sapn^evia) proves that this is not the case (or else that his copy was 
equally deficient) by twice quoting the passage exactly as it stands in 
the text. Harpocration also (//. cc. and s. v. fjyep.ovta diKaa-rripiov) quotes 
the other classes of cases down to /loix^ias (Rose, Frag: yj9)- 

TO. avfi^oXa : it is perhaps to this passage that the Lex. Seg. 
refers {s. v. diro a-u/i|3oX<oj' fiiKofet), 'Adt]valoi dno a-vfi^oXav eSUaCov Tois 
vrrriKoois. outcos 'Ap«rTorc\>;s (Rose, Frag. 380). Harpocration ex- 
plains the word (riiJ^oXa as ras avvdfjKas as av dXXijXais al ttoXsis Befiei/ai 
TaTTaai rots TToXiVais fflore diSovai kol Xafi^dveiv Ta dUaia, 

L 3 


Tovs fie ^iKaa-TOLS KXrjpoua-t iravTas oi evvea ap- 
Xovres, SeKaros 8' 6 ypafijxaTevs 6 tS>v decrfioueTcov, 
Toi/s TTjs avTov (l)vXrjs enaaTos. ra fiev oiv trepi 
TOVS 6 ap)(ovTas tovtou k^ei rov rpoTrov. 

60. KXypovai Se /cat aOXoderas SeKa [a]u8pas, 
eva TTjs (l)vXrjs eKoia-TTjs. ovtol 8e SoKifiaadevTes 
apxovcri TeTTap[a eJrTy, /cat SiotKovcri Tr]v re Tropnrrjv 
TUiv HavadTjvaicov kcu tou aymva rrjs fiovcTLKrjs Kai 
rov yvfJiVLKOv ayStva kcu rrjv LTnroSpofiiav, /cat tov 
iriirXov troLovvTai Koi tovs d/Kpopeis woiovvTat fxera 
TTJs ^ovXtjs, kol to eXaiop toIs adXrjTOLS airo- 
SiSoaa-i. a-vXXeyerai to S" eXatou [ajiro twv p-opiStV 
ela-TTpaTTei 8e tovs to. xcopia KeKTijixepovs iu ols 
at fiopMi elcriv 6 ap^fov, Tpia rjfjLiKOTvXia airo tov 
(TTeXe^ovs eKoicrTov. wpoTepov 8' eirmXei tov Kapwov 
rj TToXis' /cat et Tis e^opv^eiev iXalav fioplav rj 
KaTcc^eiev, eKpivev rj e^ 'Apeiov irayov fiovXr], /cat 

inivTas : it may be suspected that the right reading here is iravres, 
this duty which belonged to all the nine archons being contrasted with 
the others mentioned in this chapter, which apply only to the six 
thesmothetae ; while as an epithet of fintaoras it has no force. 

60. aSKoBdras : cf. Pollux (VIII. 93), aSKoBcrai Sem fUv elaiv, fis Kara 
(j)v\riv, hoKifiairBivTis be apxov<n Terrapa crri, e'jri tm SiaSeivai to. Uavaoii- 
vaia, TOU Tf fioviTiKov Koi tAj/ yvfiviKou Koi TrjV iinroSpofiiav. 

TO eXniov : the scholiast on Oed. Col. 701 refers to this passage, 6 be 
'ApKTToreXris Kai rots vixijcrao't to Havadrjvaia i\aiov tov ck tS>v fiopiav 
yiuofievov blhoarBai (prjaiv (Rose, Frag. 345)' 

Tpia : MS. Tpi, as if the writer had intended to make one word of it, 


enaXei : the third and fourth letters are a little doubtful. If this is 
the right reading, the meaning is that formerly the state managed the 
cultivation of the sacred olives itself and sold what was not required of 
the oil, whereas in later times the olives were the property of private 
individuals, subject to the obligation to furnish a certain amount of oil 
to the state, for the purposes described. 


el KaTayvoir), Oavdrm tovtov e^-qfiiovv. i^ ov 8e 
TO eXaiov 6 to •)(aipiov KeKTrjfievos diroTLuei, 6 fiev [Col. 30.] 
vofios eaTtv, rj 81 Kpiaris KUTaXeXvTaL. to 8' eXFaiov] 
€K Tov KXrjfiaTos, ovK ttTTO TO)]/ (TTeXe^mv, eaTL Trj 
TToAei. avXXe^as ovv 6 dpywv to i(j) iavlrov] 
yiyvofievov, toIs Tafiiais 7rap[a8i8j^coo-Lv ety 'A/cpo- 
iroXiv, Koi OVK e<TTLV dva^rjvai irpoTepov els ["Apejtoi' 
irayov irpXv dv dirav rrapaSw toIs Tafxiais. ol 8e 

TUflLUL TOV p.€U oiXXoV •)(^p6vOV TTJpOVCni' €V 'A/C/)0- 

TToXei, roty 8e YlavaOrjvaioLS dirop,eTpov(rL toIs dOXo- 
OeTais, ol 8' dOXoOeTau toIs vlkSxti, tcdv dywvLaTcov. 
ea-TL yap dOXa toIs fxev ttjv /jLovaiKyi/ vlkoxtlv 
apyvpia /cat ^vaa, tols 8e ttjv evavSplav dcnriSes, 
TOLS 8e tov yv/xvLKov dycova koL ttjv l7rwo8poixLav 

61. ^eipoTovovcrt 8e koL tus irpos tov iroXefiov 
dp-)(as dwacras, (TTpaTrjyovs 8e koL TrpoTepov /xev 
d<p' (e/cao-rT^y) (pvXrjs eva, vvv 8' i^ diravTcov Koi 

irplv hv arrav irapaSm rols rafiiais : i. e. the archon could not take his seat 
in the Areopagus, at the end of his year of office, until he had paid 
over to the ra/ji'ai all the oil due for the year. 

61. o-Tparrjyois : Harpocration (s.v.) mentions Aristotle's 'ti.6r]vamv 
TTokiTeta as his authority for the fact that ol icad' e<aaTov iviavrbv 
XeipoTovovfifvoi aTparqyoi dcKa riaav (Rose, Frag. 390) ; and it is possible 
that the words 8e koi, which are undoubtedly awkward as they stand, 
are a corruption of Sexa. Unless this is the case, Aristotle does not 
mention the total number of the strategi (except where he records the 
institution of the board in ch. 22) ; and this would be contrary to his 
invariable practice. 

d(^' iKda-Tr/s (jiv^rjs : MS. a(j)(f)vKrjs, which is simply explained by 
supposing iKaa-Tt]s to have been omitted accidentally. 

vvv 8' i^ inavTav : this clears up the doubt which has existed as to 
whether the strategi were elected one from each tribe or from the 
whole people without distinction of tribe. Plutarch (Cim. 8) speaks 
of them as elected by the former method at the time when Cimon 


TOVTOvs dLaraTTOVcri rrj ')(€ipoTovia, eva fieu ctti 
T0V9 OTrXiras, oy r^yeiraL twv B^fio^rcov av i^icoai, 
eva 8' eVi ttjv ^(copav os (jyvXarrei, Kav iroXepLOS tv 
rfj X'^PI '/'■vrjraL iroXefiel ovtos' Svo 8' eVt tou 
Yleipaiea, tov fieu els ttjv M.ovvv)(Lav, tov 8' els rrjv 
aKTTjv, o\ Trjs $[u]A^y eTrifieXovurai kcu tcov ev Ilet- 

and his colleagues sat as judges in the dramatic contest at which 
Sophocles defeated Aeschylus (468 B. c). On the other hand Pollux 
(VIII. 87) speaks of them as elected e^ fmavTav. Both statements are 
true, but of different periods, and Aristotle does not tell us when the 
change was made. 

biaTCLTTovin: from this passage it appears that five of the strategi 
were assigned to special duties, while five were employed as occasion 
might demand. The five officers with specific posts are all referred to 
in various extant authorities, which are quoted below, but there has 
been nothing hitherto to show that the list was exhaustive, while there 
has been some reason to include one or two specific posts in addition 
which it now appears did not belong to the strategi. 

evil fj.ev eVl tovs oirXtTas : MS. OTrXetraff, The aTpaTqyhs iiii twu 07r\o}V 
is mentioned in the decree in Demosthenes £>e Cor. p. 238, and again 
p. 265, where he is coupled with 6 eVI raw iirireav. The latter, however, 
is not called a-rpaTTjyos, and from the present passage it appears that 
he must have been one of the hipparchi. In Philipp. I. p. 47, Demos- 
thenes complains of the inaction of the strategi, saying that except 
one, ov &v fXTrc'^i/")" fVi row nokeixov {i.e. the arpaTrjyos eVi roiis dn-XiVas), 
they all stay at home and do nothing but attend to sacrificial cere- 
monies. Schomann (Anf. Jur. Publ. p. 252) unnecessarily mis- 
represents this passage, as though Demosthenes had there mentioned 
a a-Tparrjyos eVi rai/ 'nrnewv and had coupled him with the oTparijyos eVl 
tS)v ottKoiv as going to war while the rest stayed at home. From 
several inscriptions (C /. G. 186, 189, 191, 192) it appears that the 
(TTparriyos eVl tSiv SnXiov was the most important of the board of 
strategi, as his name is given with that of the archon eponymus to 
indicate the year. 

eva 8' eVi Tiji/ x^pi^" '■ this officer is mentioned by Plutarch {Phoc. 32) 
as arpa.Tr\yos lin t^s x^P'^'- 

els Tfjv Movwxiav : cf. Deinarchus in Philocl. p. 108, a-Tparriyos i<^' 
ifiav eirl Trjv Movvvxiav Kal to veitpia Kexetporovrifievos. 

els rfiv ciKTiji/: in the Corpus Inscr. Graec. Nos. 178, 179 there is 
mention of a aTpaTrjybs eVi Trjv x<»p<"' rijw napaXiav, who is probably 
the officer here described as 6 els ttjv oKTrjv rather than 6 eirl t^v x^pav. 

ivX^s : it is very strange that Phyle should be placed under the 


pauet' eva 5' eVt ras <ri'/>i[/u,o]/)iay os tovs re 
TpLT)pap\ovs KaraXeyei kcu ray avTiSoaeis avrols 
TTOLet /cat ray ^laBiKacrias afurloty elcrdyw tovs 8' 
aXXovs irpos ra irapovra irpdyp^aTa eKiripjirovaLV. 
iirL\€LpoTOvia 8' a^vJTCov icrrl kotcl Tr\v irpVTaveiav 
eKaa-TTju, et 8okov(tlv KaXcos ap^eiv kocu riva drro- 
Xetporoj'[^Jo"Ci)(rti', KpivovaLV iv rro 8LKacrTr}pi(p, kolv 
p-eu dX(S, Tipwcriv 6 tl )(py iraOeiv rj aTTOT^a-jai, av 
8' diro(f)vyri rd [AotTra] ap^u. Kvpioi 84 elcnv orav 
rjymvTai Kal 8rj(raL riv ouraKTOvvTa kclI [/CT/J/jO^at 
KoX eTTifioXiqv iirifiaXXeLV ovk elcodacn 8e eVtjSaAXetj/. 
XetpoTovovai Se /cat Ta^[ia]pxovs 8eKa, eva rrjs 

strategi of Piraeus ; but it does not seem possible to make anything 
else of the MS. It may, however, be suggested that the word is a 
corruption of (juAaKfjs. 

enl Tas crvufioplas : this officer is mentioned in one of the documents 
collected by Boeckh in his Urkunden iiber das Seewesen des Attis- 
chen Staates, xiv a. 215, p. 465, ra a-Tparrj-ym TM eVl Tas (rvfifiopias 

Toiis S' aWovs : from the decrees in Demosthenes already quoted 
(De Cor. pp. 238, 265) Boeckh and Schomann gather that one of 
the strategi was known as 6 tVi t^s SioiKijo-eas. The officer there 
spoken of is not, however, actually called oTpari/yor, and as Aristotle 
does not mention him here it may be concluded that, if the decrees 
are genuine, the Ta/iias rrjs SioiKrja-eas is spoken of, and not one of the 

ernxftpoTovia b'airav io-ri k.tX. : cf. Pollux, VIII. 87, where he includes 
among the duties of the archons a-Tparrj-yovs p^eipoToveij' e'^ iiravTcov Kal 
Kaff CKaaTTjv irpvTaveiav ewepmTav el SoKi'i. xaXZs apx^i-v eKaa-ros' to!/ &' 
anoxeipoTovrjBevTa Kpivovtri. 

oKa : MS. aXXtot, corrected apparently from aXXot. 

icqpv^ai : if this is the right reading (and it does not seem possible 
to read anything else), it must apparently mean that the general 
could publicly proclaim the name of any person misbehaving on 
military service. We can hardly suppose that he had an autocratic 
power of selling into slavery, which is another possible meaning of the 
word ; moreover the position in which it stands suggests that it was 
an intermediate penalty between placing under arrest and the rarely 
used infliction of a fine. 


^vXrjs eKaa-TTjs' ovtos S" TjyeiTai twv (f)vXeTav Kai 
Xo)(ayov9 KadiaW^'qcrLV. ^(eipoTovova-L 8e Kat iinrap- 
\ovs Bvo ef arravTcov ovtol 5' 'Qyovurai rcav vmreaiv, 
5ieAo/A[et'ot] ras (f)vXas e eKorepos' Kvpioi 8e tcov 
avT&u oavirep elcTLv ot (TTpaTrjyoi Kara twu ottXl^twv. 
iin.\€ipo\Tovia 8e yiverai tovtcov. •)(eLpoTovovaL 8e 
Kol (j>vXdpxov9, eva ttjs ^vXrjs, top -qy^rjaojiJievo^yj 
{rav LTTTrecovy axnrep ol Ta^iap-)(OL t&v ottXlt&v. 
■)(€ipoTovov(ri 8e kol ety Arjp.vou hnrap-^ov, os em- 
//.[eXjetrai tSuv hnrecov rSsv iv h.r)p,vw. ^eipoTOvovai 
Se Kou rafiiav ttjs TlapaXov kcu aXXov r^y \tov 

Inirdpxovs : Harpocration quotes the 'Kdtjvalav TroKirela for the number 
of these officers, and Photius says dvo rjaav oJ t&v IniTiaiv fjyovvTO 
dieXofievot ras (j)v\as eKarepos ava . Trevre. f 7rifieXi;ral fie eicri tSiv iTTiriav, 
Kaddirep oi ra^lapxoi Sexa o'lrts, €1? d(^' cfcatrTijs <j)v\rjs, rav oirKirav. 
(Rose, Frag. 391). Rose inserts 01 (^vkapxoi, after hrneav as subject 
of the second sentence, from Pollux VIII. 94, which is supported by 
the present passage ; but probably the omission is on the part of 
Photius himself (and not his MSS.), and he has applied to the lirwapxoi 
a phrase which Aristotle attached to the (fyiXapxot. The way in which 
the number of the taxiarchs is mentioned appears to be intended 
to note a difference in that respect from the hipparchs who are 
otherwise compared with them. 

ottXitSv : MS. oirXeiTav, and so again below. 

^vXdpxovs : Harpocration (j. v.), (fivKapxos icmv 6 Kara ^vKfjv iKaarriv 
Tov lirTTLKOv apxt^Vj vTroTSTayfievos 8e tw linrdpx^, o>s ApiaToreXTjs ev Tjj 
'Adrivattou irokiTiia t^rjcrl (Rose, Frag. 392). 

tSv Imreav : it seems necessary to insert these words to complete the 
sense of the passage ; and the insertion is confirmed by Pollux (VIII. 
94), ol Be (fivKapxoi SeKa, els Atto t^s ^vXrjs e/cdoTi)r, rSav Imtetav Trpoiorairat, 
KaBdnep ol ra^iapxot ray OTrXtTwv. 

els Afjfivov liTirapxov : cf. Hyperides {pro Lye. pp. 4, 5, ed. Babington), 
vp,e'is yap ep,e . . irparov fiev cjivXapxov exeiporovrjcraTe, eveiTa els Arjiivov 
iimapxov, Kai rjp^a pev avToBi Sv eTt] rav irimod' iimapx^Kdrav povos. 
Cf. also Demosthenes {Phil. I. p. 47)) °^ ^'^ Z*^" Aj\pvov tov wap' vpS>u 
'vnirapxov belv TrKelv. Mr. Babington misunderstood the passage in 
Hyperides as meaning that one of the two hipparchs mentioned above 
was sent to Lemnos. 

rapiav rrjs UapaKov k.t.\. : Harpocration {s.v. rapias), after mention- 


62. Ai 8e KXrjpcoTai a[/)^]ai vporepov {xev rjaav 
ai jxfu ixeT iuvea ap^ovrmv eT/cl Trjs (l>vXrJ9 oXr]s 
KXr/pov/xevai, ai 8' iv Qrjcreia) KXr/povfievai SirjpovvTO 

ing the rafiiai Trjs 6eov and quoting Aristotle's 'ABrjvaiiov TroXirela as his 
authority, adds eiVl 8e rives koI t5>v UpS>v Tpirjpmv Tafilai, i>s 6 airos 
(/xXoo-o^ds (j>r](nv. The Lex. rhet. Cantabrig. (p. 675, 28) s. v. ndpaXos 
KOi SaKafuvia says ravras ras Tpir]peis eixov dia iravTos npos ras ineiyovcras 

vnrjpea-ias, i<f) ais Kal Tap,lai nvis ixeipoTovovvro Trjs fikv Hapakov Kai 

"SidKajiivlas iv rpirri fivrj/ioveiei GoukuSiSijs koI ' ApKTTOCJidvris iv "Opviiriv, 
'ApitrroTeXris 8e 'Apiiavidda Kal IldpaKov oiSe koI Aeivap)(os iv tw Kara 
TifioKpdrovs. ^iKoxopos 8e cv tjI r TCTrapas airds otSe, irparas /iev hvo 
A/ifiavidSa Kal ndpaXov, 7rpo(Tyevop,evas 8e Aij/ii/rptaSa Kal 'AvTiyovida. 
Photius (s. V. UdpaXoL) mentioning the ^aXa/uvia says (according to the 
probable correction of the passage by Rose, ed. 1886) Xeyerai 8e fj airfi 
«cai ' Aiifiavids, while s. V, rapiai, after mentioning the raplai Tfjs 'AOrjvas, 
he proceeds ela\ Si koL oXXol rafiim, apxovres p^eipoT-ovi/Tol «ri raj Upas 
Koi Sijiioalas Tpirjpeis, fiiv eVi rffv TidpaXov, 6 8e eVi T17V tov "Apfiavos. 
Harpocration (s.v. 'Afifunvls) says 17 tov" Ajiiiavos lepd rpiriprjs, and does 
not mention the Paralus or Salaminia. Finally the Lex. Demosth. 
Patm. (p. 150) and the scholiast on Demosth. p. 636 explain the name 
'Aixjuovids as derived from the fact that the Athenians sent sacrifices to 
the god Ammon in it (Rose, Fragg. 402, 403, and 443 of ed. 1886). 
From all this it appears that the two original sacred triremes were 
the Paralus and Salaminia, and that the latter was re-named the 
Ammonias. This is not likely to have happened before the time of 
Alexander, and the occurrence of the name here is another sign of 
this treatise having been written in the later years of the life of 

62. ai phi pep ivvea apxovrav : there does not appear to be anything to 
show what offices are included under this head except the archons 
and their secretary, but presumably all the various boards of ten 
would fall into this class. 

ai 8' iv erja-eia KXrjpovpevai : that this phrase means ' the officers who 
are now elected by lot in the Theseum' appears not only from the 
tense of the participle but from a passage in Aeschines (contr. Ctes. 
ch. 13, p. SS), in which all magistracies {dpxal) are divided into those 
as oi dea-poderai cmoKXrjpovcnv iv ra eijo-fio), and those as 6 brjpos el'oofle 
XeipoTovelv iv dpxaipeirlais. The elections of the archons and their 
secretary, which had never been committed to the demes, were held 
in some place which does not seem to be recorded anywhere ; while 
those which were originally entrusted to the demes were, when they 
were taken out of their hands, held in the Theseum. 
, dijjpovvTo els Tovs Srjfiovs: i.e. the election was committed to the 


ety Tovs 8rifjL[ojvs' iireidrj 8' iircoXovv oi drjfioc, /cat 
Tavras Ik ttjs (J)vXtJs oXrjs KXrjpovcrL ttXtju fiovXevrmv 
Koi (f)povpcc>v TOVTOVS 8' els Tovs 8r]fi6Tas a7ro8i86a<Ti,. 
ficcrOocpopovcn 8e irparov \jJilv 6 5^)u.of] raty fieu 

several demes, until these bodies proved themselves too corrupt. 
What offices are included under this head we cannot tell, but they 
can only have been of very minor importance. The very numerous 
boards of ten, of which one representative .was taken from each tribe, 
can only have been elected by the tribes collectively ; unless we are to 
suppose a process of preliminary selection of candidates by the demes 
to have taken place. Such a process of preliminary selection took 
place in reference to the archons, though probably not through the 
demes ; c/. ch. & and 22, and note on latter place. 

TrXljv fiovKevTav: this throws a fresh light on the election of the 
members of the Council. The number of members elected by a deme 
must have varied from time to time. In Aristotle's time there cannot 
have been less than 150 demes, or fifteen in each tribe, supposing them 
to have been distributed equally among the tribes, which may or 
may not have been the case then, but cannot always have been so ; 
and among these fifteen the election of the fifty representatives of the 
tribe must have been divided, probably in proportion to the popu- 
lation of the demes. 

0poup£c : presumably the 500 (f)povpoi vtaplav mentioned in con- 
junction with the ^ovXevrac in ch. 24. 

lj.i(rdo<f>opov(n 8e k.t.\. : one would certainly expect the first item of 
pay to be that of the ecclesiastae, which would naturally be combined 
with that for service in the law-courts and in the Council. But the 
amount named is much more than we ever hear of elsewhere as having 
been paid for attendance at the assembly. Aristotle has already 
(ch. 41) mentioned the institution of pay for this service and its 
extension from one to three obols, but without any sign of its having 
ever been increased beyond that sum. That was unquestionably its 
amount at the date of the Ecdesiazusae of Aristophanes (392 B.C.), and 
there is no sign in any of the grammarians of a later increase. The 
only other pay in connexion with the ecdesia was that of the <ruvr\yopai 
or advocates employed on the public service. This, according to 
Aristophanes ( Wasps 691) and the scholiast on that passage, amounted 
to a drachma, but it is hardly likely that this is the payment referred 
to here ; for one thing, there is not room for the word in the lacuna, 
and on every other ground than that of the sum named one would 
prefer to supply 6 8^/ior. In the great increase of national corruption 
and pleasure-seeking which characterised the fourth century, it is not 
at all impossible that some demagogue proposed that the pay for 


aXXais iKKXrjacais Bpayjirjv, rfj fie Kvpia Ivvia' 
CTretra to. 5tK[acrr^/)£a] rpeis o^oXovs' elO' tj fiovXr) 
TTfvre ojSoXovs. toIs Se irpvTavevovaiv els (rLTr](nv * 
• • ' ' [7r]/)oo-rt^erat Se'xa 7rpo(rTi0€VTai *, erreiT els 
(riTT](TLv Xajx^avova-LV evv^a ap^ov\Tes TeTTa^pas\ 

service in the ecclesia should be doubled, and it is highly probable 
that such a proposal would have been accepted by that body. 

ivvea : sc. o^oKois, i. e. a drachma and a half. 

TO. &iKa>TTrjpta rpeis o^oXois : the institution by Pericles of pay for 
services in the law-courts is mentioned in ch. 27, but the amount is 
not named. There is a quotation of Aristotle by a scholiast on 
Aristophanes ( Wasps 684) which may be partly referred to the present 
passage : rovs rpels ojSoXous" toi* <p6pov Xe'yei, d<^' S)v eSiSoro to Tpim^oKov. 
TOVTO de aXXore aXXa)ff efitSoTo, ratv drjfjLayatyav Ta 7r\r}&r] KoKaKevovTCOU, &9 
(prjiTiv 'ApurToreXtjs iv woXirelms (Rose, Fra^. 421). Aristotle does 
not, in the extant part of his treatise, connect the pay for service in 
the courts with the competition of the demagogues, though he speaks 
of the latter in general terms (ch. 27, 28) ; but it is quite possible that 
he may have had occasion to do so in dealing with the procedure in the 
courts, in which case the passage is now lost. Hesychius {s.v. 
SiKaa-TTjpiov) uses the same phrase about the variation of the rate 
of pay, aWoTs aWas eSiSoTo. In the passage of Pollux (VIII. 113) also 
quoted by Rose, in which there is mention of varying payments of 
three obols, two obols, and one obol, it is not certain whether this 
refers to to SiKatrTiKov alone, or to to BecupiKov and to eKKXtjcriaaTiKov as 

TTEKTe o(3oXoiJs : Hcsychlus (j.^/. ;8ovX^s Xa;feiv) states that the members 
of the Council received a drachma a day, but there is not much dif- 
ference between that sum and the five obols mentioned by Aristotle, 
and the latter is most likely to be correct. 

Toiy 8e npvTavfvovaiv k.t.X. : this passage is certainly corrupt, and 
probably some words have fallen out, but in the uncertain state of 
our knowledge of the subject it would not be safe to attempt to 
restore it. 

apxopTes : that this is the proper word to fill the lacuna in the MS., in 
spite of the omission of the article before ewEo (which occurs again at the 
beginning of this chapter), is indicated by the mention of the Kijpv^ and 
av\.j]Tj]s (see following note). It is very unfortunate that this chapter is 
so mutilated, as it would have done much to clear up the question of the 
payment of the Athenian ofiScials. It does, however, make it clear that 
several of the magistrates received payment, which is contrary to the 
view that has been generally held. It is, for instance, directly stated 
by Schomann that the magistrates {ap^ovm, or holders of apxai), as 

156 AP1ST0TEA0T2 

ojSoAoiiy cKacTTOs koI irapaTpe^ovat KrjpvKa Kai 
avXrjTTjv, eTTeLT ap^mv [ety ^aXa]^plva Bpa-^^fnqv^ rrjs 
rjfiipas. aOXoOerai 8' iv irpvTaveico SeLTrvovai rou 
eK\aTOfJL0jaLaua firjua ^ av y ra TIavadyvaia, dp^a- 
pevoL dwo rrjs TerpaBos larapivov. ' Kp^ipt^nTvoves 
els ArjXov Bpa-^QiTjv rrjs rjpepas eKcurTrjs e/c ArjXov 
(^Xap^dvovai} . Xapfiavovai 8e koL otrai diro- 
(TTeXXovTai dp^al ely ^apou rj ^Kvpou r] Arjpvov rj 
"Ipfipov ely CTLTrja-iv dpyvpiou. dpy(eiv de ray peu 
Kara iroXepov dpyas e[^ea"]ri irXeovaKiS, rwv 8' 
dXXcov ov8€piav, irXrjv ^ovXevcrai, 8[f. 

well as most of the em/ifXi/Tat, served without pay (Ant. of Greece, 
Eng. Tr. pp. 401, 402; Ant. Jur. Publ., p. 237); but he gives no 
authorities for his statement. On the other side we have more than 
one passage of the present treatise. In ch. 24, among the various 
services for which the populace of Athens received pay, and thereby 
supported itself in the city, are the apx""' ei'Sijfiot to the number of seven 
hundred, which must apparently include all magistracieSv great and 
small. In ch. 29 one of the first provisions of the board of Thirty 
which was established in 411 B.C. to draw up the new constitution 
was ras ap^as ajiltrBovs ap)(eiv mratras ccos 6 noXf/ios fi, TrXiyv tS>v ivvia 
dpxovrav Kal tS>v TrpvTaveav oi &v &(tiv, tovtovs Se (pepfiv rpels d/3oXour 
eKauTov T^s r)p,epas. This clearly shows that up to that time both the 
magistrates named and others who are not named received pay. 
Finally there is the present passage, which, though mutilated, seems 
to indicate that the pay of the archons was four obols a day ; and 
this agrees well enough with the passage in ch. 29, since it is not un- 
natural that when all other officers were being deprived of their 
remuneration those who still received it should have it reduced. At 
what date pay was introduced for these magistracies we cannot say, 
except that it must have been between about 470 B.C. and 411 B.C.; 
nor can we say whether this rule applied to all magistrates, and, 
if not, to which of them. It seems more than probable, however, 
that it applied to the archons. 

KTjpvKa Koi avKrjTrjv : a KTjpv^ ra ap\ovTi and an av\r)Tfis are mentioned 
side by side in two inscriptions (C /. G. 181, 182), and it is probable 
that these are the officials here referred to. 

apxav els 2a\apii>a : this is the officer mentioned in ch. 54. 

SemvoviTi : MS. Smpovan. 


63. Ta fie biKaarripia ^jc^rj^pova-Lv^ ol d ap- 
[xo]z/rey Kara 0i;Aay, 6 fie ypafXfxaTevs tS>v Q^crp-o- 
\6eTa)v r^y] BeKaTrjs (jivXrjs. elaoSoi fie' elaiv eiy to. 
diKa(r[TTQJpia 8eKa, p.ia rfj (pvXfj eKoicrTrj, /cat KXrj^pco- 
Trjpia\ €LKO(ri, fi[uo v^yj 0j;A^y eKaaTr^s, /cat Ki^coria 
iKarov, 8eKa ry ^vXfj iKaarr}, /cat erepa KL^cori^a 
fie/ca, oiy eJjti^aAAerat tcop Xa^ovrcov fit/cafcrlroji' ra 
TT^ivaJKLa' /cat vSplai 8vo /cat ^aKTijplai TrapaTiOevTai 
Kara ttjv e^laoSovj eKaanqv oaonrep ol fit/cafcrlrat, 
/cat j3aXavot els ttju vSpiav ipL^aXXovTai 'la-ai rals 
^aKTTjplais, \y\iypaTrTaL fie ev raiy ^aXdvois [ra] 
aTOi.-)(eta otto tov ivSeKUTOV, rov A, oaairep iav 

63. To 8e : MS. TO 8e TO. A detailed account of the procedure in 
the law-courts begins here, but unfortunately the greater part of it 
is lost, or exists only in such a state that it is hopeless to decipher the 
remains into a connected narrative. We have here the description of 
the first part of the procedure in the assignment of the jurors to the 
several courts, and the fragments which remain of the rest of the treatise 
show that the same detailed scale was preserved throughout this part of 
the work. Some points in the description are not quite clear, but the 
general outline is already known from the scattered statements of 
orators and grammarians. The subject is fully treated of by Meier 
{Atiische Process, II. l), and from him in the various dictionaries of 
antiquities, so that it is not necessary to describe it at length here. 

jSafCTijpiai : MS. ^aKnjpta. 

StTOtirep : MS. ovs oavep. 

iCT-ai : in the MS. a <r has been written before this word, but has 
been struck out. 

TO (TToixila diro tov cvdeKarov : the text has been confused in the MS., 
but the tneaning is clear. In the MS. the words at first written appear 
to have been arro rov evSeKarov tov rpiaKoixTov. Then tov Tpianoarov is 
cancelled, and above the last syllable of ev&cKarov and the cancelled 
words is written tov X" TpiaKoa-rov: It is clear that the insertion of 
TputKo<TTJOv is a mistake, though apparently it must have occurred in the 
text from which this was copied. Aristotle is simply stating that 
in one of the urns used in the process of selecting by lot the bodies 
that were to sit in the several courts were placed tablets, equal in 
number to the courts required on the day in question, and lettered 
from X (the eleventh letter in the alphabet) upwards. The reason 


fji€\Xrf [rja SiKacrT-^pi-a irXrjpoodrjcreaOai. SiKa^eiv 8' 
e^ecTTtv Tols inrep X err] yeyovocnv, oaoi avT&v [/ij'7 
6(j>€LXovcnv Tw 8r)fio(ria> ^ aTifioi eXcrtV eau 8e tls 
8i.Kd^r) ols firj e^ecTTLV, evSeiKwrat Kara to 8iKa(r- 
TrjpLov elirayyeXi^a^, iav 5' aXm Trpoa-Tip^axTLv avry^ 
ol 8LKaaTCU o tl av 8oKy a^ios eivai Trade^uj rj 
oLTTorlcraL. iau 8e apyvpiov Ti/JLrjB^ 5et avrov 8e- 
Se^adaij ecos av eKTiarj to re irpoTepov o^X'qf^a e]^' 
ca iv€8ei)(d7] k<u o tl av avTm Trpoa-TL/xyari t^o 

for beginning with \ is that the first ten letters, from a to k, were 
already used to distinguish the ten groups into which the whole heliastic 
body was divided. Accordingly when the casting of lots took place 
the letters from a to k indicated the ten groups of jurors, and the 
letters from X to n (or less, if not all the ten courts were required) 
the courts in which they were to sit. Thus if y was drawn from the one 
urn simultaneously with r from the other, it showed that group y was 
to sit in court t. Then, as the last words of this part of the MS. tell 
us, one of the officials hung up the letter y on the court t, to show 
which group was sitting there. But a further security against un- 
authorised persons intruding was required. The group y might 
possibly not have its full complement of members, in which case it 
would have to be filled up from the 1000 reserve dicasts who were 
not assigned to any of the ten groups ; and as these reserve members 
would not have the same ticket as the members of group y it was 
not sufficient to direct the attendants to admit to court t only the 
persons who produced a dicast's ticket lettered y. The device adopted 
is described in col. 32 (=Frag. 420). Each court had a certain colour 
painted on a projecting stone or stake (o-^j/kiVkos) at its entrance. 
Supposing that colour to be dark blue in the case of court t, 
as soon as the group y had been made up to its full strength by 
drawing members from the reserve, each person received a stafif also 
coloured dark blue, and the attendants would admit to the court only 
those who could produce this staff. Each person thus qualified, as he 
entered the court, received a voucher (frvn^oKov), and on presenting 
this at the end of the day he drew the pay to which he was entitled 
for his services. 

The reason for the corrupt insertion of TpiaKoaroS in the text is simply 
that A is the numeral representing 30, and some person, misunderstanding 
the passage, thought that the letter was here used in its numeral 
capacity and added the number in words in the margin or above the 
line, from which it became incorporated in the text. 


hiKyuTT-qpLOv. e)(€L S" cKacTTOf SiKaa-Trjf ttlvolklov 
TTV^LVOV, iiriyeypafifjLevov to ouo/xa to iavTov ira- 
TpoOev Koi Tov 8rjixov koX ypdfi\jJL(ij eu twv a-Toi^eicav 
p-eXP'- ''"O'^ ''' vevep.r)VTaL yap KaTa (f)vXa9 SeKa fieprj 
ol SLKaaTai, TrapaTrX^rjcrLJcos 'icroi ev €Ka.o-Ta> tco 
ypap^pLoi^TL. eTreiSav Be 6 deap-odeTr]? iTriKX-qpaxry 
TO. yjo[a/Aj/iara a bet irpoa-irapayiveadaL toIs SiKacr- 

mvaKiov : there is a lacuna before this word sufficient to contain two 
letters, but it does not appear that anything is wanting to complete the 
sense. If anything was written it was probably struck out. 

vevcfirjin-ai yap Kara (fivXas SeKa /leprj k.t.\. : this does not mean that 
each group consisted of members of a single tribe, which is inconsistent 
with all the evidence we have on the subject and is disproved by the 
existing irivaKia or dicast's tickets, of which a considerable number have 
been found in recent years, and on which members of different tribes 
appear as belonging to the same group. The meaning is, on the 
contrary, that each group contained, roughly speaking, an equal 
number of representatives from each of the ten tribes. 

TO "kaxov. the MS. breaks off here with all the appearance of having 
reached the conclusion of the work, as it is neither the end of a 
column nor the end of a lipe, and a slight flourish is made below the 
last words. But clearly the author is only in the middle of his subject, 
and there are moreover several fragments (Nos. 423-426) which 
obviously belong to this description of the procedure of the Sixao-Tijpia. 
The rest of the work was evidently written on a portion of papyrus of 
which several fragments remain, but unfortunately in a condition 
which makes continuous decipherment hopeless. They are written in 
the 'third hand' of the MS., which explains why the text breaks 
off here in the middle of a column. The writer of the ' fourth hand ' 
left off transcribing at this point, and when his colleague or servant 
took it up he began a fresh column. Moreover it is clear, from an 
inspection of the writing on the recto of these fragments, that he began 
a fresh piece of papyrus. The writing on the recto of the piece which 
ends here contains the accounts of the end of Pharmouthi and the 
greater part of Pachon for the eleventh year of Vespasian ; while the 
accounts on the recto of the fragments belong to the end of Phamenoth 
and the greater part of Pharmouthi (both the beginning and the end 
remain, but the middle is lost and the whole mutilated) of the tenth 
year. It is therefore clear that an earlier portion of the same collection 
of accounts was taken in order to receive on its verso the conclusion 
of Aristotle's work. Enough is legible to show that these fragments 


TrjpioLS, iTTedfjKe (j)€pa)j/ 6 vTrrjperrjs e(j) eKaarT[ov 
diKJaaTrjpLOv to ypdppM to Xa^ov. 

are a continuation of this part of the text, and to identify all but one of 
the quotations referred to above as belonging to this part of the work. 
The text is subjoined so far as it is legible ; but it will be seen that, 
with the exception of the concluding sentences of the work and those 
places where the extant quotations assist us, it is impossible to restore 
it to a state of continuity without an unjustifiable use of conjectural 



•^^f [Col. 31.] 

ypov[vTo] .... [KJaff eKaaTTjv Tri\y 0u] 

Xrfv iTnye^ypafifjLevas] eV avTwv to. (ttol 

Xeia fiexpt .... [eVjeiSai/ 8' i/jL^dXa)(rLi> tS> 

V hiKa(TT\5iv TO. TTivaKJia els to Ki^coTifov] 

€0' ov . . 7) ^yeypajixfj.euov to ypap\ji(x\ 

TO avTo b eVp tS TrjivaKLcp eaTlv a . . 

Tav crTOi)([^^(ovj . . aeicravTos tov yfTr?;] 

peTov eA[/cet 6 decrpo^OeT-qs i^ eKacTTOv 

TOV KL^coyrLov TnvaJKiop eu. ovtos 8e 

KuXei ..€,... vs KOLL ipiryyvva-t 

TO, TTlVaKia . . . ^Tojv KlficOTlOV els TTjV 

KavoviBa . . . [ro ajvTO ypdppa eirecrTiu 

31. ^ Se : this is the first word visible on the fragments which now 
represent what was originally the last roll of the MS. A few letters 
remaining to the left of this column show that at least one column 
has been lost from its beginning. Then follow two columns of which 
there are considerable remains, two which are almost entirely lost or 
illegible, and two which contain the conclusion of the work, the last 
one (which consists of only eight lines of writing) being alone in good 
condition. It seems useless to divide this very fragmentary text into 
chapters, especially as it is all concerned with one subject, and the 
numbers of the columns afford sufficient means of reference. 

ifi^oKaxTiv : so, apparently, as a correction of ^Xafima-iv. 

Kavoviha : corrected from Kavaviha, and so again below, Kavovides, 



owep eVi Tov .... ovtos tva firj del 

6 avTOS iijL7r[r)yvvTrjs cbuj KaKOvpyy. elal Se 

KavoulSes [ejv eKacTTCo rmv kXt] 

pcoTTjpmv .... [ejp^dXr) tovs kv^ovs 6 apycov rrjv 

^vXtju ^KJXrjpcoTT^piov. elal 

Se Kv^oi . . . [/xeJAaj'ey Kal XevKol, 

ocrovs 8' av 5e[ij eKaaTOTe^ ^iKaards, Toaov 

TOVS e^aXXov .... /cat Kara irevre 

TTivaKia els . . . [/ieAJaz/cy tov avTou Tpo 

TTOV. eireiSdv 8e . . . tovs kv^ovs KoXel 

TOVS elXij^oTas 6 ^vTrrjpeTijs^. virdp^ei 8e Kol 6 ifi 

irrjyvvTrjs els ... 6 8e KXrjdels kol 

e/c Trjs v8pLas 

Koi . p . e^as avTri^v] . . . wv to 5[ei] 
KvvcTLV 7rpcoT[ov pev\ . . T<^ dpxovTL TCO e\(f\e(T 
TTjKOTL, 6 8e V 'i8r) epfiaXXei to 


. ev yfp^e, eireiTa . . . ov to uvtov (TTOi)(ei 
ov oirep ev Ty ^aX^dvaj . . els olov av Xdxy 
ela-eir] koX pr/ elcr . . . av ^ovXt/jtul p,i]8els 
j7 avvayayelv , . . SiKacTTrjpiov ovs av 
^ovXrjTai tis . . . rat fie r^ ap^ovTi kl 
jQwrta oar' av . . ^pjeXXy to. 8LKa(TTrjpLa 
irX-qpcoOrjaeaOaL . . vtus OTOL')(elov e 
Kaa-Tov oirep a . . tov 8iKa(rTT]pL0V eKatr 

[Col. 32.] [tov'\ . eix 

^v^TrrjpeTr] et 

Toiis Kv^ovs : added above the line. 

OTTOV : before this word on has been written, but it is struck out. 

elueiij : qu. for ela^ei ? 


oy 6 8e V7rrjp[€Trii\ . . . [t^v fiaK]TT}pia[u rrjv'j 

[ojfioxptov Tcp e/ca[(rrov] 

. . oirep h Tj) fiaXavm koL avrm . . 

. . eXdeiv els iav to, 

. . erepov ei 

• • iJjVS fiaKTTjpias. [roty yap 8iKaaTT]pjiocs XP^ 
[/A]a[r]a iTnyeypaTrrlai i(j)' e/cao-rra] eVi tS o-(pr] 
\_KJL<TKa) TTjs €la]^68ov 6 8e XajBav t^v] fiaKTrjp 
\iavj fiaSi^et els [roj BiKo^a-TrjpLOV to^ opoxpcov 
fieu Trj fiaKT^rjpQa e[xov 5e to avTo] ypdppa 
[oTrepj iv rrj fiaXdvcp. e7r[eifiav 5e elaeXOrj^, TrapaXapj3 
avei avpjSoXov drj^p-oa-iaj irapa tov elXi] 
[xojToy ravTTjv ttjv 6^pxT]v\- . . ra . rjv ra . . 

. . TTjv fiaKTrjpcau rr] . . 

. . . Tpoirov res toIs ■ . 

. . . ouy 8l . . . OL K . Trep . k . . 

. iri . . aKTjX 8r]fio(rLa 

[r^Jy (jivXrjs eKdo-rrjs d.^va8LJ86a(nv rapy] 
. . . eve . . TO 5iKa[crr^^]£0i' eKaaTOV . . 

. . eCTLV Ta (f)vXT]9 TCOV . . 

eveKa 6 tco . . . Ka . . . 7ra/3a5t5oa[o"iJ 

8e Tols elXr]^6cnv\ . . . 8ovai, tols 8' l8^L(oj 

Tais eKacTTCp W]^ dpiOp^co r . . 

irapa tc^ . . tovtov . . . vv . . s a7ro[5i] 

32. rois yap hKa^rTrjpiois k.t.\. : this passage is quoted verbally by the 
scholiast on Aristoph. P/ut 278, who introduces it with the words, 
jrepi TOV wapaSiSonevov tois fl<nov(Tiv els to SiKacrTrjpiov crvp^6\ov 'Apur- 
TOTeXrjs iv Tjj 'A6r]valav noKiTfia ouro) ypdipei (Rose, Frag. 420). In the 
scholium XP''>H^ is read instead of p^paifiaTa, and a lacuna is indicated 
between it and imyeypaiTTai, which Dindorf fills up with a whole 
clause; but according to this MS. nothing can be lost except the 
syllable to, and even that is not absolutely certain. 

M a 

1 64 APIST0TEA0T2 

Bcoai T . . . 00V 5e iravra . . . 

Kara SiKacrTrjpia rp . . ev tco v 

5tKa(rr^/)[t]o[v] . . . . la koL x 

eiu €iT €7n ra 

/cat erepoi Kv^fioji iu oI[y] . . . av dp . . v t . 
Tw e . . . ^ . . era . . . to . . tS>v [^etr/ioj 

Oerav tovs /ci;[/3ouy] 

ISaXXovcriv 6 irevr [Si/cacr] 

T-qpiov 6 Be rmv dp^xouTcovj 

. . 8av . . . TT) a . . . dp-)(a>v 

. . . Krjpv 

[Col. 33.] ["aj/a^wj/ T 
. evrep . , 

e/xia . . at 
au Xa . . . 


. cos K 

. rat ^ a/OX'7 [5tKa] 

^<rJTr]p[<p eKOLCTTCp 


KaaTTjs Trjs 

erepov Kevov 

TOVS irpcoTOvs 

Se . p . Tes Tvapa 

firjSels irapa 

. . 5a)/)[a] fxrjTe 

. . T}Ta . . apea 

33. Of this column only a strip remains, containing the beginnings 
of the lines ; and even this is considerably rubbed, so that it is not 
possible to obtain any connected sense out of it. The last five lines 
of the column are completely illegible. 


. . Aa^oj/ 


Tov ixLcrOov 

rat, at ^vXal [eVetl 

8av diKdo-cocrli] 

Bias a TOV 

TovTO aw 


orav fiej^ 

Tm dpidfi^mj ....... 

. . TOV vofio^vj 

els avTO TO TT 


. . (TL . elcri SFe] 

. . poys 

. . Tas 


[Col. 34.] 



KaCTTOL ... 

. . va . . . 

TrevSoi ... 

. . fxap . . . 

detv TOVS ... 

. . VWK . . . 

Xafifia ... 

. . COS rpr} . . . 

/)0f roty 8 . . 
cj/ oe roty . . 

. . [eJTTtAajLi/S . . . 
. . ro) re /c . . . 

. ft)i Siacj) ... 

. . 810. fiev . . . 

e TTi roty ... 

. . Secov OS • • • 

e (rrt 5e . . . 

. . XP^^ '" • • 

;x>^Ma'- • • • 

ttTTo r^ y ... 


. . [ro]vy . . 8as 

. . . 18lovs 

(2) " ■ ' 
. . . crTr]p . . 

. . . (OV T CO V 

. . A . . . 

. . . rey . . . 

. . 5e raS . . 

. . . fir)T€ ... 

■ • • fi'OX • • • 
. . . overt re . . . 

. . xowy • • • 

. . y Set . Tov 

. . . rouy . . . 
. . . V 81K . . . 

. . . . OV TOLS ep 

. . iirraxovs 8e 

. . cov Koi 8l-)(0VS 

. . 8l)(^ovs i^d^ovs 

. . epov . . . (TOV . 

. . cos eirikafi^dveL 

34. A few detached fragments are given here which belong 
either to this column or to those which immediately precede and 


fO""" av [Col. 35.] 

5e5e eij/ 

^^^ evrjv fxev 

Ta V 

Tpi€ . . . [■\//'^0oi 8e elo-t x^^f"'] auAt'o- 
Kov [expva-aL iv r^ /J-eaa, at fieu TJ^ixia-eiaL re 
Tpv^TrrjfievaL at 8e rjixia-eLai irXrjpeis. oi] 5e Aa 
Xovres [eVt ray ylri^^ovs, iTreidav eiprj/Mejvot 
maiv [ol Xoyoi, TrapaSiSoacnv ^Kaarm tJcbj/ 
SiKaa-T^atv 8vo ■^rjcftovs, TeTpvTrr/fievTjji' kou 
irXrjpr], ^avepas bpav tols olvtiSlkols f\va fi-q 
T€ TrXrjyjeis fi-Qve TerpvTrijfjLevas dfi^oJTepas 

Xaixfi^dvcoa-Lvj [A]a;(tB . . 



follow it. The size of this portion of the papyrus is estimated from 
the writing which is on the other side of it, from which it may be 
gathered that not more than one column is required between that 
which has just been given and that which follows as col. 35. The first 
fragment consists of the beginnings of lines, and must therefore belong 
to either col. 34 or col. 35. The two next contain the middles of lines, 
and may therefore be placed anywhere in columns 33-35. Then is 
given the fragment containing the bottom of col. 34, which is on one 
piece of papyrus with the left-hand bottom comer of col. 35. 

35. The remains of this column consist of a strip containing the 
ends of the lines throughout, but in such a condition as to be 
practically undecipherable, and of another piece which contains the 
beginnings of the lines at the bottom of the column. In the latter it 
is possible to identify one of the extant quotations of Aristotle's work 
(Rose, Frag. 424), and the passage is accordingly reconstructed. 
The quotation occurs in Harpocration, s.v. TeTpvTrrnjicvr], and it is 
prefaced by the words, 'ApKTTOTeXrjs iv 'Adr/vmav iroKireia ypd(j}ei ravTi. 
The only variation in the text is the addition of afii^onpas at the end 
of the quotation, which is a distinct improvement. 


[Col. 36.] . . Tov y airoSiS . . . [yjap y Xa t/^r^^i 

. . 7rdvT€s ol . , pas tl Xa opov 

. iav fir] \lrr](f)i^'ijTai els . . ap,(f)opels 

[8vo ta-TJavTat. eV t^ SiKaa-TTjpia, 6 fieu ^a'jXKOVs 

[6 8e ^vjXivos, Siaiperoi [oJttw^ [7r]aj'[rey] . . . VTrq 

. . ely ovs yl/r](j)i^ovTai [e0'] eKaara, 6 p-ev 
[xaA/coOJy Kvpios, 6 8e ^vXivos aKvpos, exe[t 5' 6j 

\kovs iyriOripa Siepp^ivrjjpevov oxtt av^TJriv 
^povTjjv ■)(<opelv TTji/ yfAjj(j)ou, 7]v [5e] 01 8vo \TOVJ 


. . rj. eirtibav 8e 5ia\/rj^^t[^e(r^ai] peXXwaiv 
. . ra 6 KTjpv^ dyopd^ei, wpS>TOv hy ela-Ka 
Xavrai ol dvTtStKoi rds paprvpias' [rajy yap 
. . i'jna'Ki^yjraa'dai ra . . ^TrjdvT d^vayjpa'^ 
. . dai. ejreLTa irdXiv [6 Krjpv^ /(97/3]i;7-r[et], rj re 
[rpvTrrjjpevTj tov 7rp[oJT€po^v XeyovTos^ i? [pej irXr] 
\pr]s. To\v v<TTepov XiyovTOS .... acrr . . ra 
. . TOV Xv\veiov tols yjnjcjjovs [EJi't efAcao'Jroi' 
. . TT]s ^ri(j)ov Kal 6 SeLKvvoDU . . era 

36. The greater part of the width of this column remains, but the 
writing is much rubbed in places, so that it is not easy to decipher 
connectedly. Two of the extant quotations, however, occur in it, 
which are of great assistance in restoring those parts of the text. 

afi<j)opels : this passage is quoted, with slight variation of language, 
by the scholiast on Aristoph. Knights 1150, . . iltrTepov 8e a/ixftopeis 860 
"uTTavTO iv ToiE SiKacrTijpioif, 6 fikv )(a\Kovs, 6 8e ^iXivos' xai 6 /lec Kvpiof 
rjv, 6 6f aKvpos, ?;(ct fie Ka) 6 )(a\Kovs, &s (j)t](n,v 'ApKTTOTeXrp, huppivrijievov 
inWfffia, eh rh avrijv povrjv Tr)V yjnj(j)ov KaQUirdai. Pollux also (VIII. 123) 
draws from Aristotle, yjffjtfiovs fi' eix°'' X"'^*"^ ^^°> rerpxmrifjLevrjv Koi 
aTpinrjTov, Kal KaSov if Kr/pos cVficfiTO 81' oJ KaBUro r/ ^rjtj^os' aSBis 8e 
bvo dp(j>opeU, 6 ph p^aXxoCr, d he ^iXivos, 6 pev Kvpios, 6 8e aKvpos' ra 8e 
XoKk^ iirrjv inidrjfia pla ylfrjtfia xo>pav e\ov (Rose, Frag, 426). 


. fxev 01 . TO T€Tpv7rr]iJi,e[y]ov 

. TrX^pes fiaXXet Trjv . . ev . . eiy 

. OVV a fJL . , TT] . . . po . . €IS 

. vov irXa cf 

. fievoL Xa^€Lv ras vTr\r}peT . . 

a])Li0o/)ea tov Kvpiov . . cos . . . ava 

. 7rr)p,aTa . . . ra aiprj 

. avra cua $p.oi 

• e/c VP • V ^V^ 

. TL 8 ovs [et]A.77 

[xoray] 8ia . . ras . . . fov a . . a . is 

fjL€ . . . eis X ^f ravT e 

p.ev . . av . . pe . . K . . tov 

(ov T(ov ^rj(j)eai' tov jxev Sia> 
[^KOujTos Tas T€Tpv7n]p-evas, tov 8e (jifevyovTOsJ 
[rajs irXrjpeLS' biroTipa 5' [av TrXelco yjevr] 
[rat ovJTOs vlko.. av 5e [tVai, a7ro0ei;yei. etVja ttcc 
Xiv Tip.S)(ri, av 8€ri Tip^rjaai, tov uvtov [Col. 37.] 

TpOTTOV ■^Tjijil^Op.eVOL, TO flCV (TVpL^oXoV 

dTro8t86vTes ^aKTrjplav 8e irdXiv irapaXap, 

Tav yffrjtfxov : this passage is quoted in the Lex. rhet. Cantabrig. 
p. 670, 30, s. v. i(Tm al ^TJ(j)oi avTav : iyevovro 8c 'laai ^jArj(|}ol, ws ' Api(TTOTe\rjs 
iv Tj 'Adrjuaiau TroXiTft'a" Kai rjirav tov fiiv BiaKOVTOs ai TiTpynrnievai, tov 
8e cfyevyovTOS ai jrXfipeis' oiroTepca S' &v ttXcIovs yevcovTai, ovtos ivlna' ore 
8' urai, 6 (jievyav dnecfivyev, as Koi QeoSeKTiyj iv Trj SaKparovs aTToXoyia 
(Rose, Frag-. 425). The words 6 cjjcvyav have dropped out of this MS., 
and, though the sense is clear without them, it would probably be 
better to restore them. 

VLKO : MS. VeiKO. 

37. This column contains the final words of the treatise in good 
condition. It seems probable that this is actually the end of the work, 
though the fact of the writing breaking off in the middle of a column 
would not prove it, as that has already occurred in the cases of columns 
24 and 30. But this time an elaborate flourish is executed, such as we 


fiduovTCS. rj 8e TifXTjals icrriv irpos rjfii^ovv 
S8aT09 eKarepcov. eTreiSav fie avrols j) 8e 
SiKoa-fieva ra e'/c twv vofjucov, anroXap, 
^avovaiv tov /XLcrdov iv t^ fiepei ov 
eXaxov eKacTTOi.. 

find at the conclusion of other papyrus MSS., and the subject of the 
law-courts has been brought to completion. It is, no doubt, an 
abrupt ending, but it is not therefore uncharacteristic of Aristotle. 
TinSxn : MS. Tciiiaxri, and so again below, reiiMriaai, Teiiir]ais. 


Fragments of the 'Mnvamv noXtreta previously 



Harpocration j.z;. 'Awo'AAcoywarpoior 6ni6ios. irpoa-riyopCa 
Tis eoTi Tov deov TtoXX&v Kal SWcoz; ow&v. tov 8e 'AwoWcoi-a 
KOLvSs Trarp&ov tijx&ctiv 'AOrjvaiot airb 'Icovor tovtov yap 
oUrja-avTos TrfV 'Attlktiv, w? ' Apia-TOTfkrjs ^Tjo-t, rovs 'AdrjvaCovs 
latvas KkriOrjvat koL AiroWco itarpaov avrois 6voiJ,a(T6rjvai,. 

Exc. Polit. Heradid. § i : 'Aertvaioi rb jxiv e£ apxrjs 
exp&VTo jSaaLXeCa, avvoiKT^a-avros be "loavos avrois, Tore iTp&TOv 
'loaves eKkrid-qa-av. YlAvboiv (1. UavUutv) be ^acriXevtras jixera 
'EpexOea bUveifie Trjv ap^Jiv tois vlois. kol biereXovv ovroi 

Frag. 343. This quotation is clearly from the opening of Aristotle's 
treatise, now lost. We know from the summary in ch. 41 that Aristotle 
took the establishment effected by Ion as the starting-point of the constitutional 
history of Athens, so that this passage probably occurred very near the 
beginning. The extract from the noAi«rai of Heraclides is given because 
that work was evidently a compilation from Aristotle (cf. note on ch. 18, 
mp' ov Kal avve0rj k.t.K.). The first part of it, as far as iK>J]9rjaav, is given by 
Rose in his 1870 edition under no. 343 ; the rest, with the continuation of 
it quoted below (Frag. 346), in his 1886 edition under no. 611. A passage 
added in this place by him from a scholiast on Aristophanes has already been 
quoted in the note on ch. 3, 'leura. 

^ The quotation is given in ftill when the fragment does not occur in the MS. 
from which the present text is published. In other cases a reference is given 
to the chapter in which it is to be found. The numbers are, as before, those of 
the 1870 edition of Rose's collection, in the Berlin Academy edition of Aristotle. 



PHnius, N. H., VII. 305 : Gyges Lydus picturam Aegypti 
(condere instituit) et in Graecia Euchir Daedali cognatus, 
ut Aristoteli placet, ut Theophrasto, Polygnotus Athe- 


See ch. 60 and note on to IXaior. 


Plutarch, Thes. 25: «ti 6e naWov av^rja-ai rrjv irokiv 
^ovXojievos fKaXei irdvTas eitl Tois tcroiy, Koi to " bevp' ^re iravTes 
Xeo)" KTipvyiia &r)(Teu>syevi<rdai (pairi iravbrjixLav Tiva KadiaravTOS. 
ov ii-qv &TaKTov ovbe fiep.iyfj.iv'qv wepieibfv vTrb it\r]6ovs i7nx»- 
OevTos cLKpLTov yefOju^i'Tji' ttjv brjuoKpaTiav, aWa TtpStTOS aTioKplvas 
)(wpls eviraTpCbas koI yea>iJ,6povs nal brjixiovpyovs, fviraTpibais 8e 
yiv<acrKeiv to, OeZa koX vapeyeiv hpyovTas amobovs Kai v6iJ,(ov 
Maa-KdXovs etvai, Koi Q<ri(ov koi lep&v e^yrjTtis, tois aXKois 
TToAirats Sa-irep els tcrov Kareorrjo-e, 8o£j) p.ev evitaTpibStv XP^'? 
6e yeaifioprnv irXriOei, be brifj,iovpy&v inepe^eiv boKovvraiv. on 
be TTp&Tos aireKMve Trpbs tov o)(\oy, as 'Apioror^Xr/s ^rjo-i, 
Koi a(j)r]Ke TO ixovapxelv, eoiKe p.apTvpeiv Kat "OpiJjpos ev ve5>v 
KaTokoyto fiovovs ' AOrjvaiovs bfjp,ov irpofrayopeva-as. 

Exc. Polit. Heraclid. § i : ©rjo-eiiy be enripv^e km (rvve^L" 
I3a(re rot/rouj Itt' tcrrj koi 6p,ola jxoipa. oSros eXOuiv eh "SiKvpov 
eTeXevTr)a-ev axrOeii Kara Trerprnv xrnb AvKop,7\bovs, (po^rjdivTOs 
IJ,r] (T^eTepio'TiTaL ttjv vrjcrov. 'AOrjvaioi be ijcrTepov Trepi to, 
MrjbiKCt ixeTSKopticrav ovtov to, oara. airb bi Kobpib&v ovKiTi 
^aa-iXeis fjpovvTO bia Tb hoKelv Tpv<pav koL p,aXaKovs yeyovevai. 
'liTTToiJ.evris be els tcov KobpibSv fiovX6p,evos a/TTcaa-acrOai ttiv 
hia^oXrjv, Xa^lbv firl Ty OvyaTpX A.ei.p.ivr) p,oi)(6v, eKeivop ixev 
aveiXev vi:oCev^as /ixeTa ttjs Ovyarpbs t(3 6.pp,aTi, ttjv be foiro) 
ovveKXeicrev 'ecus diro'XTjrat, 

Frag. 344. This quotation is given by Rose and is therefore included here, 
but it may be taken as nearly certain that it is not from the 'AStjvaiaiv iroKireia. 

Frag. 346. It is impossible to tell for certain how much of this passage 
is taken from Aristotle, but we know that Plutarch made use of the latter'? 

Appendix. 173 


Schol. in Plat. Axioch. p. 465 (cf. Moeris att. p. 193, 16) 
yevvqTy : 'Ajoto-ToreXr/s ^jjcrt tov oKov itXtjSovs birjp-qixivov 'Adri- 
vq<nv els re tovs yecopyovs Koi roiis ^Tj/^ioupyois (f) avrSiv 
etvai Tea-aapas, t&v S^ ^vX&v eKaorjjs juotpas elvai rpeis, hs 
rpiTTuas re KoKovcn koI <j)parpias, eKda-rrjs be tovtmv rpi&KOVTa 
eXvai yem\, to he yivos €k TpL&KovTa tKOcrrov avbp&v crvveardvai. 
to'6tovs brj TOVS els tcl yivq TeTayp,evovs yevvqTas koKovci. 

Lex. Demosth. Patm. p. 153, ed. Sakkelion, yewrJTat, : irdkai 
to t&v 'A6r)vaici)V irX^flos, "nplv rj KXeia-devr] Stot/cijo-acr^ot to, 
irepl Ths 4>vXds, 6ir/petro eis yewpyovs Koi btjiJLLOvpyovs. kol (j)vka\ 
tovtcov rjcrav 8', t&v be (j)vX&v eKaarri fj-oCpas el^e y , hs (jiparpCas 
KOL TpiTTvas enaXow. tovtmv b' eKaiTTri orvveia-TriKeL eK TpiuKovra 
yev&v /cat yevos enacrTov avbpas ei^e TpiaKOVTa tovi els to, yivq 
TeTaypLevovs, oiTives yevvrJTM knaXovvTo, S>v al leponruvai e/cdo-rots 

work, and he evidently had it before him here, as he proceeds to mention him 
by name. In all probability the division of the people into Eupatridae, 
Geomori, and Demiurgi, with the description of their respective positions, may 
be ascribed to Aristotle's authority, in addition to the phrase which is actually 
quoted from him. In the summary in ch. 41 the rule of Theseus is taken 
to mark the first modification of the constitution in the direction of popular 

Only the first sentence of the extract from Heraclides is given in Rose's 1870 
edition. Hippomenes was the fourth of the decennial archons and the last of 
the descendants of Codrus who governed Athens, his period of rule ending in 
722 B.C. 

Frag. 347. The passage quoted by these various authors evidently comes 
from Aristotle's description of the constitution under Theseus, to whom was 
ascribed the division of the people into Eupatridae, Geomori, and Demiurgi. It 
is noticeable that alike in the scholiast to Plato, Moeris, and the Lexicon 
Demosthenicum the name of the Eupatridae is omitted, clearly pointing to 
a community of origin, which may have been either the text of Aristotle 
himself or of some compiler from himi. 

The Lexicon Demosthenicum appears to contain the fullest citation from 
Aristotle. The comparison of the numbers of the <pv\ai, (pparp'uu and yivr] 
to the seasons, months, and days is also found in Suidas, who must have drawn 
from the same source. 

Harpocration appears also to have drawn from Aristotle in his account 
of the word yevv^rat, but he adds nothing to the quotations already given. 
The same is the case with Pollux (VIII. 11 1), but he does not follow Aristotle 


Trpoa-T^KOva-at, eKXrjpovvro, olov Ev/*oA.Tri8at koX Ki^pvKes koX 'Ereo- 
^ovrdbai, &s JoTopei Iv rrj 'AOrjvaCoiv iroXiTeCa 'AptoToreAjjs 
Aeycor oi!ra)s. <l)v\as be avrmv avvvevenrjadai, 8' a/noiunrfvafihiutv 
ras Iv rots ^z/taurots &pas. kKacTTr\v h\ bijiprja-Oai els rpla p-ipr] 
t5)v <pv\&v, Sttuis yivrjTai ra irdvTa bdhena fiepr}, KaQi/nep ol 
IJifjves els rhv eviavTov, KaXeia-dai be avra rpirrvs /cat <i)parplas. 
els be Trjv (j>paTpiav rpidKOvra yivrj ^MKeKOcrp/qcrQai, Kaddirep at 
■qjxepai els top jxrjva, to be yevos eXvai TptaKovra avbp&v. 

Harpocration s. v. Tpvrris : rpurrus kcni ro rpCrov fjJpos 
rrjs (t)v\rjs' avT-q yap bifjprjrai els rpla pAprf, rpirrvs Koi edvT] 
KM (^parplas, &s (jjricnv ' ApLtrrorikrjs ev rfj 'Adr]vaLa)V noXurelq. 


Servius ad Vergil. Georg. I. 19, uncique puer monstrator 
aratri : . . . vel Epimenides (significatur) qui postea 
Buzyges dictus est secundum Aristotelem. 

Lex. rhet. Seg. p. aai, 8 s.v. BovCvyCa: yivos n ' kOriv7)(Tiv, 
lep<£icruvr)v rivcL exov 'SovQuyr]s yap ris r&v ■^pcawv irp&TOs 
l3ovs C^i^as rriv yijv rjpoa-e Kal els yempylav eiriTjjSetoz' e-noCrjcrev, 
a(ji oS yevos Kakelrai BovCvyCa. 


See ch. 8 and note on </)ii\al 8' ^aav. 

See ch. 7 and note on Tt/x^)nara. 


See ch. 2 and note on ■ne\drai. 

See ch. 7 and note on avaypafavres. 


See ch. 8 and note on vofxov i6riKe. 

Frag. 348. There appears to be no sufficient reason for assigning this 
quotation to the 'ABrjvaiaiv iro\tTeitt, unless Aristotle had any occasion to 
mention the family of Bovivyla, 


Plutarch, Solon 3a : ^8^ 8r) biacnropa KaranavOivTOs avrov 
(^okcovos) TTJs ricppas wepl T-qv '2a\afuvCMV vfja-ov eari fxev 8ia 
TTjv axoitiav b/nidavos iravrditaai kol iivdtabrjs, avayeypairrai, 
8' VTTO re SWmii avbp&v a^ioXoymv koI ' Apia-ToreXovs rod (j)i\o- 


See ch. 15 and note on ttjv em UaWrivCbi. lidxnv. 

See ch. 19 and note on Ai'^bpiov. 


See ch. 19 and note on Ai^bpiov. 

See ch. 19 and note on hbs 8et irevrriKovTa. 


See ch. ai and note on KoreoTTjo-e. 


See ch. 23 and note on 8ta to yevia-Oai. 


See ch. 33 and note on 8ia to. yevia-Oai. 

See ch. 30 and note on eXA.?jj;ora/xtas. 


See ch. a; and note on AaKiab&v. 

Frag. 354. Plutarch does not state that this quotation is from the 'Affrivaiwv 
noXirda, and it is a story which may have been alluded to in any other work 
almost as well. 

176 Appendix. 


Plutarch, Pericl. 4 : 'Aptorore'XTjs 6^ irapa UvdoKXeibrj ixova-i- 
K-qv biaTrovqOrjvai tov avbpa (jyrjirlv (tov TlepiKXia). 


See ch. 27 and note on a-vix^ovKevovTos. 


See ch. 25 and note on (rvvaiTiov. 


See ch. 25 and note on 81' ' Apia-robUov. 


See ch. 38 and note on ireptfiuo-d/xei/oy. 


See ch. 28 and note on Nt/cias. 

See ch. 34 and note on viro Kkeocfy&vm. 


See ch. 27 and note on 'Avvtov. 

See ch. 33 and note on pLrjvas. 


See ch. 34 and note on ApaKovTibrjs. 


See ch. 55 and note on -np&Tov p.iv. 


See ch. 55 and notes on -npSiTov p^iv and 6pv6ovcnv. 

Frag. 364. It is evident that this quotation is out of keeping with the 
character of the 'ASrjvaiaiv iroKtreia and may well have been taken from some 
other vf ork. 



Pollux, III. 17 : 6 6e irdir'nov rj 7?j0?js warTJ/) irpo-aainos' raxa 
8' &v TovTov eiirois rpiTovaTopa, its 'ApL(TTOTe\r]s. 


See ch. 55 and note on Trpos tov XiOov. 

See ch.,59 and note on 01 he 0e(rij,odfTai. 


See ch. 59 and note on eio-t be km. 


See ch. 59 and note on ra crv/i^oXa, 


See ch. 56 and notes on ©apyrikia and ypa<^ai. 

See ch. ^6 and note on ypa(\>ai. 


See ch. ^6 and note on els baTrjT&v atpecriv. 

See ch. 56 and note on airov. 

See ch. 57 and notes on AiovvcrCoov and ypa<^aL 


See ch. ^'] and note on 6 8e ^acnkevs. 

See ch. 58 and note on 6 8e TroXepLapxos. 

Frag. 376. As the word TpiTowarap does not occnr in the 0eaixo$(Twi> dva/rpia-is, 
to which Rose no doubt imagined it to belong, there is no reason to suppose that 
it is taken from the 'AStjvaltmi itoXneia at all. 




See ch. 58 and note on avros 8' da-dyei. 


See ch. 56 and note on kafx^avovn. 


See ch. 61 and note on aTpaTrjyovs. 


See ch; 6r and note on iTrTrapxovs. 


See ch. 61 and note on (f)vkAp\ovs. 


See ch. 43 and note on irpvTavevei. 


See ch. 43 and note on crwdyova-Lv. 


See ch. 43 and notes on avvdyovcnv and upoypd^ovcn. 


See ch. 43 and note on 'i:poypd<f>ov(n. 


See ch. 44 and note on eTrtardr?]?. 


See ch. 44 and note on irpoebpovs. 


See ch. 54 and notes on ypai^ixaria and ewl tovs vojxovs. 


See ch. 48 and note on irapaXa^ovrfs. 

See ch. 47 and note on itwXriTal. 



See ch. 47 and note on -napaXaix^dvova-i, and ch. 61 and 
note on Ta^iiav t?js Ylap&Xov. 


See ch. 61 and note on rajxiav rrjs UapdKov. 

See ch. 54 and note on Uponoiovs. 

See ch. 48 and note on evdvvovs. 

See ch. 54 and note on Xoyiards: 

See ch. 54 and note on koyia-Tas. 

See ch. 50 and note on da-rvvoixoi.. 


See ch. 51 and note on ayopavoixoi. 

See ch. 51 and note on l/xwoptov ewtjaeX?jras. 


See ch. 51 and note on (nTO(f>v\aKes. 

See ch. 51 and note on ixerpovoixoi. 

See ch. 53 and note on rerrapaKovTa. 

See ch. ^^ and note on rots Statrijraty. 

N a 


See ch. 5;^ and note on ex^vovs. 

Pollux, VIII. 62 : e^eo-ts 8^ ecrriv orav tis uttc) 8iatTrjr5i' 17 
apxpvTMV ri br\iioTS)V ewi Sikoot^v e^^, 17 a-no ^ovXfjs fin S^/xor, 
^ a-KO briixov em biKacrT-qpiov, ri cltto bLKa<TT&v eirl £eviKov SiKatr- 
Trtpiov' i(/)e(rtjuios 5' avoixdC^ro fj 8ikjj. aSrat 5e Kai ^KKXf)TOi 
bUai ^KaXovvTo. to be TrapaKara^aWo^evov lirt t&v ((jyeaeoiv, 
oirep 01 vvv irapajSokiov xaAoCo-t, -napa^okov 'AptororeATjy Xeyet. 

See ch. 57 '^nd note on r<3y S' aKovaioiv. 


See ch. 57 and note on r&v 8' aKova-icov. 


See ch. 57 and note on eirl /^ek(f>ivm. 


See Fragments, col. 33, and note on rois yap biKaa-T-qpCoi-s. 


See ch. 62 and note on to, biKaa-r-qpia. 


See note on ch. 38, rrjy biui^okCav, 

Harpocration s. v. Sta/nefteTprjjoteVjj fjixepa : ixirpov ti e(7rti> 
i'Saros Trpos iJ.eiJi,eTprip,ivov fjnepas bidarrnxa piov. be 

Frag. 416. If this citation is from the 'ABrjvaiwv TroXireia, which is in itself 
probable enough, it presumably comes from the discussion on legal procedure, 
which is imperfect in the MS. 

Frag. 423. This passage no doubt belongs to one of the more mutilated 
columns containing the description of the procedure in the law-courts. 


r(5 ITotreiSecSi't /xijiii. irpos Stj toCto jjycovi^ofTo oi ixeyia-roi xal 
■77ept Twi) jxeyLo-Taiv &yS>ves. StevejueTO 8e eJs rpta jxepr] to vbuip, 
rb fjiev T<5 Stu/coi'ri, to 6e tu ^evyovri, to 8e rpirov toIs 6iK(i^o»;o-i. 
Taiira 8e (Ta(f>4(rTaTa avrol ol p-qropes SeSijAtoKacrti' . . . 'Apioro- 
TeA.Tjs 8' ev rrj 'A6r]vaCa)V TroAtreta 8i6a(r(cei wept tovtwv. 

See Fragments, col. 35, and note. 

See Fragments, col. 36, and note on t&v yjrrjcfxav. 

See Fragments, col. 36, and note on aiJ.(j)opeis. 

- 427- 
See ch. 42 and note on bia\}/r)(f>iCovTai.. 

See ch. 4a and note on eKxA-Tjo-tay. 


See ch. 5s ^"^ note on bvo be nal reTTapaKOvra. 


See ch. 49 and note on tovs abwdrovs. 


See ch. 56 and note on 8eT yap. 

In the latest edition of Rose (1886) two additional 
passages are cited, viz. : — 

413 (1886). 
See ch. 3 and notes on wKijo-az^ and Kvpioi 8' wav. 

429 (1886). 
See ch. 5 a and note on ojxoXoySxn. 


ACASTUS, kingof Athensjsuccessor 
of Medon, 6. 

'ASvvciToi, supported by the state, 

Aegospotami, battle of, 92. 

Agoranomi, 126. 

"AypniKoi, early division of the 
Athenian people, 34. 

Agyrrhius, establishes pay for 
attendance at Ecclesia, 107. 
Raises it to three obols, ii. 

Alcmaeonidae, expelled from 
Athens for the Cylonian sacri- 
lege, I. Leaders of exiles 
against Pisistratidae, 49 ff. 

Alexias, archon, 405 B. c, 92. 

Ammonias, sacred trireme, rafilas 
of, 152. 

Amnesty after expulsion of the 
Thirty and the Ten, loi. En- 
forced, 103. 

'AficpiKTvoves els A,fj\ov, 1 56. 

Anacreon, invited to Athens by 
Hipparchus, 46. 

Anchimolus, of Sparta, killed in 
unsuccessful attempt to expel 
Pisistratidae, 51. 

'AvTiSoa-is, 141. 

Antidotus, archon, 45 1 B. C, 74. 

'AvTiypa<f>evs, clerk to the Council, 
135 and note. 

Antiphon, leader of the Four 
Hundred, 88. 

Anytus, loses Pylus, 76. Bribes 
the dicasts, id. One of the 
leaders of the moderate party 
after the fall of Athens, 93. 

' AiToSeKTai, 121, 129. 

Archestratus, author of laws re- 

specting the council of Areo- 
pagus, 94. 

Archinus, of Ambracia, Cypselid, 
first husband of Pisistratus' 
second wife, 46. 

Archinus, one of the leaders of 
the moderate party after the 
fall of Athens, 93. Prevents 
large secession on re-establish- 
ment of the democracy, 102. 
Opposes extension of citizen- 
ship to all who assisted in return 
of the exiles, 103. Enforces 
amnesty, ti. 

' ApxiTiKToves, for ship-building, 

Archon ^aa-iKeis, see King-archon. 

Archon eponymus, origin of, 6. 
Residence, 7. Duties, 140 ff. 

Archons, the nine, origin of, 4 ff. 
Residences, 7. Election under 
pre-Draconian constitution, 9, 
22 ; under Draconian constitu- 
tion, 10 ; under Solonian con- 
stitution, 21 f. ; under Cleisthe- 
nean constitution, 59, note. 
Election by lot finally estab- 
lished, 59 f. Zeugitae made 
eligible, 73. Examination and 
duties, 137 ff. Oath on taking 
office, 6, 17, 139. Pay, 155. 

, secretary to, 138. 

Areopagus, Council of, under pre- 
Draconian constitution, 8, «2 ; 
under Draconian constitution, 
13 ; under Solonian constitu- 
tion, 24. Revival of power after 
Persian wars, 65 ; its supre- 
macy at this time the sixth 



change in Athenian consti- 
tution, 105. Overthrown by 
Ephialtes, 69 ff. Tries cases of 
intentional homicide and arson, 

Arginusae, battle of, 91. Trial of 
the generals commanding there, 

Argos, assists Pisistratus to recover 
tyranny, 46. Its alliance with 
Athens a cause of jealousy to 
Sparta, 51. 

Aristaichmes, archon, circ. 621 
B. c, 9. 

Aristides, ostracised, 64. Recalled, 
ib, TrpoaTaTrjs rov dq/xoVj 66. 
Assists in building walls of 
Athens, ib. Makes confederacy 
with lonians, ib. Counsels 
people to congregate in Athens 
and assume control of politics, 
67. His reforms the seventh 
change in Athenian constitu- 
tion, 105. 

Aristion, proposes bodyguard for 
Pisistratus, 38. 

Aristocrates, assists to overthrow 
the Four Hundred, 90. 

Aristodicus, of Tanagra, murderer 
of Ephialtes, 72. 

Aristogeiton, conspiracy against 
the Pisistratidae, 47 ff. Executed 
with torture, 48. 

Aristomachus, presides at Ec- 
clesia which establishes the 
Four Hundred, 88. 

Asclepius, festival of, 14 1. 

'AcTTUi'dfioi, 124. 

'AffKoderm, 148. Maintained in 
Prytaneum during the Pana- 
thenaea, 156. 

BouXij, see Council. 
Boufuyia, priestly family in primi- 
tive Athens, 174. 
Brauronia, festival of, 137. 

Callias, archon, 412 B.C., 88. 
Callias, archon, 406 B. c, 91. 
Callibius, harmost of Spartan 

garrison in Athens, 98. Assists 

the Ten to establish reign of 

terror, 99. 
Callicrates, increases amount of 

the fitu^oXiu, 78. Executed, 79. 

Cavalry, inspection of, by the 
Council, 122. 

Cedon, leader of attack on Pisis- 
tratidae, 53. Scolion on, ib. 

Cephisophon, archon, 329 B.C., 


XeiporoyjjToi apx^i, date of entry 
into office, no. 

Choregi, appointed by the archon, 

Cimon, son of Miltiades, leader 
of aristocratical party, 72, 77. 
Munificence of, 75. 

Cineas, of Thessaly, assists Pisis- 
tratidae against Spartan inva- 
sions, 51. 

Citizenship, qualification for, 74, 
107. Examination of candid- 
ates, 108. 

Cleisthenes, Alcmaeonid, party 
leader, 52. Expelled by Spar- 
tans, ib. Restored, 53. Consti- 
tution of, 53 ff. His reforms the 
fifth change in Athenian consti- 
tution, 105. 

Cleitophon, motion on institution 
of the Four Hundred, 81. One 
of the leaders of the moderate 
party after the fall of Athens, 


Cleomenes, king of Sparta, expels 
Pisistratidae, 49, 51. Restores 
Isagoras, 52. Besieged in acro- 
polis and capitulates, 53. 

Cleon, irpocrTaTTis rov Stj/iov, yy. 

Cleophon, TvpovTorr^s tov drjfjiov, 
78. Institutes 8itn|3oXia, ib. 
Opposes peace with Sparta 
after Arginusae, 92. Executed, 


Colacretae, 19. 

Comeas, archon, 560 B.C., 38. 

Comedy, choregi appointed for, 

Conon, archon, 462 B.C., 69. 

Corn-laws, 127. 

Council, of Four Hundred, under 
Draconian constitution, 11 ; 
under Solonian constitution, 

, of Five Hundred, instituted 

by Cleisthenes, 54. Elected 
by lot, 1 10. Liability to corrup- 
tion, 106, 123. Summary juris- 
diction of, 117. Appeals from 



its jurisdiction, 117 f. Reviews 
business to be submitted to 
Ecclesia, 118. Superintends 
ship-building, ib. ; also public 
buildings, 119. Miscellaneous 
duties in conjunction with var- 
ious magistrates, 119-124. Pay 
for service in, 155. 
Cylon, conspiracy of, I. 

Damasias, attempts to establish 
a tyranny, 33 f. 

Damonides, adviser of Pericles, 
76. Ostracised, ib. 

Delos, festival at, 136, 141. 

Delphinium, court of, tries cases 
of justifiable homicide, 144. 

Demagogues, character of, 77 ff. 
Disastrous naval policy, 106. 

Demes, division of, among tribes 
in Cleisthenean constitution, 55. 

Arj/iiovpyoi, early division of Athe- 
nian people, 34. 

Democracy, re-establishment of, 
after the Four Hundred, the 
ninth change in Athenian con- 
stitution, 106. Its re-establish- 
ment after expulsion of the 
Thirty and the Ten, 100 ff.; the 
eleventh change in Athenian 
constitution, 106. Its subse- 
quent development, ib. 

AiaiTijTui, duties of, 129 ff. 

Aidxpiot, party-division in Attica, 

Aixao-Tai Kara Sij^ovf, instituted by 
Pisistratus, 43. Re-established, 
74. Their duties, 129. 

AiKoarripia, mentioned under So- 
lonian constitution, 26. Pay for 
service in, instituted by Pericles, 
75 ; its amount, 155. Sittings 
regulated by the thesmothetae, 
146. Procedure in, 157 ff. 

Auo^oKia, instituted by Cleophon, 
78. Increased by CaUicrates, 

Dionysia, festival of, i4of. 

, at Salamis and Piraeus, 137. 

Diphilus, statue of, with inscrip- 
tion, 20. 

AoKt/iao-id, of the archons, 138 ff. 

Doors, legislation against their 
opening outwards, 125. 

Draco, constitution of, 9 ff. His 
laws abrogated by Solon, except 
those relating to murder, 16. 
His reforms the second change 
in Athenian constitution, 105. 

Dracontides, proposes establish- 
ment of the Thirty, 93. 

Ecclesia, in Draconian constitu- 
tion, 12. Payfor attendance at, 
established by Agyrrhius, 107; 
increased by Heracleides and 
Agyrrhius, ib. ; its final amount, 
154 f. Number of meetings of, 
III. Business at each meeting, 
112 f. 

Eetioneia, fortification of, by the 
Four Hundred, 97. 

Eiffaycoyetff, 1 28. 

Elections by lot, under Draconian 
constitution, 1 1 ; under Solo- 
nian constitution, 21 ; after 487 
B.C., 59. Where held, 153 f. 

Eleusis, assigned as residence for 
the Thirty and their adherents, 
100. The settlement there re- 
absorbed into Athenian com- 
munity, 104. 

Eleven, the, superintendents of 
prisons, 19, 127. 

"Efifirivoi SiKai, 1 28. 

'E/wroptou eVi/ieXi;Tat, I27. 

Ephebi, enrolment of in the demes, 
107 fif. Military service as TTfpi- 
TToAoi, 109. 

'E<^eTai,judges in court of Phreatto, 

Ephialtes, npoa-TaTris tov Btjiiov, 
69. Attack on the Areopagus, 
69 ff. Murdered, 72. His re- 
forms part of the seventh change 
in Athenian constitution, 105. 

'Emx^ipoTOuia, 151 f. 

'ETTtfieXijTOi tS>v Aiovvaiav, l/^l. 

iimopiov, 127. 

rSiv p,v<rTt]pia>v, 1 43. 

Epimenides, of Crete, purifies 
Athens after Cylonian sacri- 
lege, 2. 

'Eiria-KevatTToi UpS>v, 1 24. 

'ETrio-TaTijy tSk irpoeSpav, 1 1 5. 

tSu/ irpvTdveiov, duties of, 1 1 3- 

'Ewawiioi rav jjKiKiav, 1 30 ff. 

tZv (f)v\S>v, 57, 130. 

Erechtheus, king of Attica, 171. 



Eretria, iwirels of, assist Pisis- 
tratus to recover tyranny, 42. 
Sea-fight off, between Athe- 
nians and Spartans, 90. 

'EreojSoi/TaSat, priestly family of, 

Euboea, revolt of, 90. 

Eucleides, archon, 403 B.C., 100. 

Eumeleides, abolishes summary 
jurisdiction of the Council, 117. 

Eumolpidae, priestly family of, 
100, 143, 174. 

Eupatridae,early division of Athe- 
nian people, 34. 

Ei/'^wa of outgoing magistrates, 

Evdvvoi, 121 f. 

Festivals : — of Asclepius, 141 ; 
Brauronia, 137 ; Delian, 136, 
141 ; Dionysia, 140 f.; Dionysia 
at Salamis and Piraeus, 137 ; 
Heracleia, 137; Lenaea, 143; 
Panathenaea, 136, 148 ; Pen- 
teteridesi36ff.; Thargelia, i4of. 

Five Thousand, body of, under 
constitution of the Four Hun- 
dred, 82, 83, 89. Govern- 
ment by, after overthrow of the 
Four Hundred, 90. 

Forty, the, see AiKoarai koto. Srifiovs. 

Four Hundred, government of, 
instituted, 80. Constitution of, 
82 ff. Overthrown, 90. Their 
government the eighth change 
in Athenian constitution, 106. 

Tenrj, early subdivision of Athenian 

people, 173. 
VevvrJTaLj 173. 
Gorgilus, of Argos, father of Pisis- 

tratus' second wife, 46. 
VpaiifiaTe'ii, various classes of, 

rpafifiaTevs, 6 Kara npVTavelav, 1 34, 
tS}V SeafioOeTUiVf 1 38, 

Harmodius, conspiracy against 
thePisistratidae,47ff. Religious 
ceremonies in commemoration 
of, 146. 

Harpactides, archon, 511 B.C., 51, 

Hegesias, archon, 555 B.C., 39. 

Hegesistratus, son of Pisistratus, 

also named Thessalus, 46. His 
character, ti. 
Heiresses, under guardianship of 
the archon, 142. 

'EKTrifiopoi, 3. 
'EWi/cora/iiai, 84. 
Heracleia, festival of, 137. 
Heracleides, of Clazomenae, raises 

pay for attendance at Ecclesia 

to two oiols, 107. 
Hermoucreon, archon, 501 B.C., 


Herodotus, referred to, 41. 

'IfpoTTotoi, 84, 135. 

'lepSiv eTruTKevacTTai, 1 24. 

Hipparch in command at Lemnos, 

Hipparchi, under Draconian con- 
stitution, II. Date of election 
of, 116. Duties of, 152. 

Hipparchus, son of Charmus, 
first person ostracised, 59. 

Hipparchus, son of Pisistratus, 
associated with Hippias in the 
tyranny, 45. Invites Anacreon 
and Simonides to Athens, 46. 
Murdered, 48. 

'limels, catalogue of, 123. 

Hippias, eldest son of Pisistratus, 
succeeds him in the tyranny, 
45. Sole rule after murder of 
Hipparchus, 49. Expelled, 51. 

Hippomenes, decennial archon, 
last of the Codridae, 172. 

'OSoTToioi, 133. 

Homicide, tried in various courts, 
144 ff. 

Hypsichides, archon, 481 B.C., 

Imbros, Athenian magistrates at, 

Infirm paupers, supported by the 
state, 124. 

Inheritance, law of, altered by the 
Thirty, 94 f. 

Ion, first polemarch, 5 . His settle- 
ment of Attica the beginning of 
the Athenian constitution, 104, 

lophon, son of Pisistratus, 46. 

Isagoras, son of Tisander, party 
leader, 52. Expelled, and re- 
stored by Spartans, ik Ex- 



pelled again, 53. Archon, 508 
B.C., ib. 

KaTaXoycir t&v mTreav, 1 23. 

KijpvKer, priestly family of, 100, 
143, 174- 

King-archon, origin of, 5. Resi- 
dence of, 7. Duties, 143 ff. 

Kpr/vaiv c7nfieKr]Trjs, elected by 
X^i-pOTOvia, no. 

Kvp^eis, Solon's laws inscribed on, 

Law-courts, see Areopagus, Del- 
phinium, AiKaa-Trjpia, Palladium, 

Law-suits, various classes of: — 
aypa^iov, 1 47 ; abiKiov, 1 34 ; 
alKeias, 128 ; dvSpaTToSav, 1 28 ; 
OTTO tSv (TU/iiftJXtDi/, 147 ; airo- 
(TTatriov, 146; dirpocrracriov, 146; 
aa-e^eias, 143 ; 0ov\ev&€(os, 147 ; 
Sapo^fliias, I47 ; Sapaiv, I34, 
147 ; ela-ayyAiai, 147 ; els Sarr)- 
tS>v aipea-iv, 142 ; els iviTptmris 
biabiKaaiav, 142 ; els eTrirpoirrjs 
Karda-Taa-w, 1 42; efi/irivoi, 128; 
ifiiropiKai, 1 47 ; iiriKkfjpov Kaxii- 
o-eas, 142 ; ipaviKai, I28 ; Upai- 
(Tvvris, 143 j xXriptov Koi irnKkripav, 
142, 146 ; kKoittis, 133 ; K01VU>- 
viKai, 128 ; jiiTtiKKiKai, 147 ; 
fioixeias, 147 ; vecov KaKuxreas, 
142 ; o'lKov 6p(j)avtKov KOKaxrecDs, 
142 ; 6p<pavSiv KaKaxretos, 142 ; 
TTopavoias, I42 ; napavofiav, 147 ; 
TrpojSoXai, 147; TpoiKoj, 128; 
TTvpKoias, 144 ; ievias, 147 ; 
a-VKo^avTias, 1 47 ; Tpane^iTiKai, 
128; TpiTjpapxlas, 128; inro^vyimv, 
128 ; (j>6vov, 144 f.; ^ev8eyypa(jyrjs, 
147 ; ■\jfev8oK\i]Telas, 1 47 ; \jfev8o- 
fiapTvpias, 147. 

Lemnos, an Athenian hipparch in 
command there, 152. Athenian 
magistrates at, 156. 

Lenaea, festival of, 143. 

Lipsydrion, defeat of Athenian 
exiles at, by Pisistratidae, 50. 
Scolion on, z'^. 

Aoyurrai, elected from the mem- 
bers of the Council, 121. Duties, 

Lot, see Elections. 

Lycomedes, of Scyros, murderer 

of Theseus, 172. 
Lycurgus, leader of the Pediaci, 

Lygdamis, of Naxos, assists Pisis- 

tratus, 42. Is made tyrant of 

Naxos, id. 
Lysander, of Sparta, establishes 

government of the Thirty, 92.' 
Lysicrates, archon, 453 B.C., 74. 
Lysimachus, condemned to death 

by the Council, 117, 

Market regulations, 126 f. 

Maroneia, mines of, 62. 

Medon, king of Athens, successor 

of Codrus, 6. 
Medontidae, character of rule of, 

Megacles, son of Alcmaeon, leader 

of the Paralii, 36. Alhance with 

Pisistratus, 39 fif. 
Megacles, son of Hippocrates, 

ostracised, 60. 
Megara, war against, 37. 
Melobius, partisan of the Four 

Hundred, 80. 
Metoeci, under protection of the 

polemarch, 146. 
Merpovofioif 1 26. 

Miltiades, leader of aristocratical 
party, 77. 

Mines, discovery of, at Maroneia, 
61 f. Farmed out by the 7rcuX))rai' 
and the Council, 119 f. 

Mia-6o<popia, 154 ff. 

MitrBaifiaTa, managed by the ttcoXj;- 
roi'and the Coimcil, 119 f. 

Mnasilochus, archon under go- 
vernment of the Four Hundred, 

Mnesitheides,- archon, 457 B.C., 

Munychia, occupied by Thrasy- 

bulus and the exiles, 98. 
Myron, accuser of Alcmaeonidae 

for Cylonian sacrilege, i f. 
Mysteries, under management of 

the king-archon, 143. 

Naucrari, officers of treasury, 23. 
Neutrals, Solon's law against, 25. 
Nicias, leader of aristocratical 

party, 77. 
Nicodemus, archon, 483 B.C., 61. 



Oil, from the sacred olives, given 

as prize at the Panathenaea, 

148 f. 
Orphans, under guardianship of 

the archon, 142. 
Ostracism, instituted by Cleis- 

thenes, 57. First practised, 58. 
'Oa-TpaKocfiopia, proposed in 6th 

prytany of each year, 112. 

HaidoTpl^ai, trainers of the ephebi, 

Palladium, court of, tries cases of 

unintentional homicide, 144. 
Pallene, battle at, between Pisis- 

tratus and the Athenians, 42. 
Panathenaea, festival of, 136, 148. 

Prizes at, 123, 149. 
Pandion, early king of Attica, 

Pangaeus, Mt., residence of Pisis- 

tratus in the neighbourhood of, 

UapdXwt, party-division in Attica, 

Paralus, sacred trireme, rajiias of, 

Tlapaaratris, 147' 
Xlapebpoi tS>v cidvvoDV, 122. 
, of the three chief archons, 

Paupers, supported by the state if 

infirm, 124. 
Pausanias, king of Sparta, assists 

re-establishment of democracy 

at Athens, 100. 
Pay for public services, 67 f., 1 54 

ff. ; under government of the 

Four Hundred, 82. 
neSiaKol, party-division in Attica, 

UeXdrai, 3. 

Peloponnesian war, outbreak of, 


neV\of, of Athena, 123, 148. 

Pericles, restricts citizenship, 74. 
Accuses Cimon, 75. Attacks 
Areopagus, I'i. Promotes naval 
development, ii. Institutes pay 
for service in law-courts, id. 

IlfpOToXoi, service of the ephebi as, 

Phaenippus, archon, 490 B.C., 58. 

Phayllus, moderate aristocrat, 

leader of second board of Ten, 

Philoneos, archon, 527 B.C., 45. 
Phormisius, one of the leaders of 

the moderate party after the fall 

of Athens, 93. 
tparplat, early subdivision of 

Athenian people, 173. 
Phreatto, court of, tries cases of 

homicide by an exile, 145. 
<bpovpo\ vecopiav, 68, 154- 
^vXapxoi, 152. 
*i;Xoj3affiXeij, 23, 145- 
Phye, impersonates Athena at first 

return of Pisistratus from exile, 

Phyle, occupied by Thrasybulus 

and the exiles, 96. Defence of, 

under control of strategi of 

Piraeus, 150. 
Piraeus, demarchof, 137. Dionysia 

at, id. 
Pisander, leader of the Four 

Hundred, 88. 
Pisistratidae, government of, 45 ff. 
Pisistratus, leader of the Diacrii, 

36. Campaign against Megara, 

37. Seizes tyranny, 38. First 
expulsion, 39. Second tyranny, 
40. Second expulsion, 41. Resi- 
dence at Rhaicelus and Pan- 
gaeus, id. Final establishment 
of tyranny, 42. His administra- 
tion, 43 ff. Death, 45. His 
government the fourth change 
in Athenian constitution, 105. 

Plans of public buildings, removed 
from jurisdiction of the Council, 

Polemarch, origin of, 5. Residence 
of, 7. Under Cleisthenean con- 
stitution, 58. Duties of, 145 f. 

TlaKriTai, 1 9, I19 f. 

19, 127. 

Upo^oXai (TVKotjjavTotVj 112. 

npoSpopiot, inspected by the 
Council, 122. 

IlpoeSpoi, duties of, 114 ff. 

Property-qualification for political 
office, underDraconian constitu- 
tion, 10 {. ; under Solonian con- 
stitution, 17 ff. 

npoordTijf ToO Sfip.ov, persons so 
entitled :— Solon, 3, 77 ; Pisis- 



tratus, T] ; Cleisthenes, 53, ^^ ; 
Xanthippus, ^^ ; Aristides, 66, 
"n ; Themistocles, 66, 77 ; 
Ephialtes, 77 ; Pericles, ']'] ; 
Deterioration of character of, 
after Pericles, ']^ ; Cleon, "]•] ; 
Cleophon, 78. 

Prytanes, under Draconian con- 
stitution, 11. Duties of, no ff. 

Prytanies, arrangement of, 1 10 f. 

Pythodorus, archon, 432 B.C., 75. 

Pythodorus, proposes institution 
of the Four Hundred, 80. 
Archon during government of 
the Thirty, 404 B.C., 93, 104. 

Rhaicelus, residence of Pisistratus 
at, 41. 

Rhinon, moderate aristocrat, 
leader of second board of Ten, 
99. Elected strategus, 100. 

Salamis, archon of, 137, 156. 
Dionysia at, 157. 

Salamis, battle of, 65. 

Samos, Athenian magistrates at, 

Scyros, Athenian magistrates at. 

■Seio-ax^f'i, the, of Solon, 1 5 f. 

Simonides, invited to Athens by 
Hipparchus, 46. 

2iTo0ij\aKfr, 126. 

Solon, first npoa-TdTtjs tov bfjfiov, 3. 
His poetry, 14, 15, 28 ff. 
Economic reforms, 15. Consti- 
tutional reforms, 16 if. Property 
qualification adopted as basis 
of constitution, 17 ff. Demo- 
cratic characteristics of his re- 
forms, 25 ff. Reform of weights 
and measures, 27. Withdraws 
to Egypt, 38. Opposition to 
Pisistratus, 38. His reforms the 
third change in Athenian con- 
stitution, and the beginning of 
democracy, 105. 

Sftx^poKio-Tat, appointed to take 
charge of the ephebi, 108. 

Sparta, expels Pisistratidae, 51. 
Sends garrison to support the 
Thirty, 98. 

Strategi, under Draconian con- 
stitution, 1 1 ; underCleistheneari 

constitution, 57. Date of election 

of, 116. Election of, 149 f. 

Duties, 150 flf. 
STpiinj'yos inl Toiis oirXiras, 150. 

eVi Triv ■)(i>pav, 1 50. 

eVl TOV Xiiipaiia, 150. 

eVl ras a-v/iiJopias, 151. 

^vKofpavT&v vpo^oXai, in 6th pry- 

tany of each year, 112. 
'SvpifioKa, international conventions 

respecting commercial suits, 147. 
'S.vvryyopoi, assistants of the Xo- 

yiiTTai, 133. 

Tapiai Trjt 'ASr]vas, in Solonian 
constitution, 19,22; under the 
Four Hundred, 84. Nominal 
property-qualification for, 119. 
Their duties, 119, 149. 

Twv iepav rpirjpcov, 1 52. 

Tap,ias rS>v ahwarav, 124. 

tS>v (TTpaTitoTiKmv, elected by 

xeipoTovia, I lo. His duties, 1 19, 

Ta^iap)(oi, 151. 

Telesines, archon, 487 B.C., 59. 

Ten, board of, created to succeed 
the Thirty, 98. Establish reign 
of terror, 99. Expelled from 
power, ib. Excluded from 
amnesty, and allowed to settle 
at Eleusis, loi. 

Ten, second board of, re-establish 
peace in Athens after the 
anarchy, 99. Moderate govern- 
ment of, 100. 

Thargelia, festival of, 140 f. 

Thebes, assists Pisistratus to re- 
gain tyranny, 42. 

Themistocles, procures building 
of triremes, 62 ff. Archonship 

of, 62 note. 1TpO(TTaTr]S TOV Stj/iov, 

66, y?. Builds walls of Athens, 
66. Accused of Medism, 71. 
Assists Ephialtes to overthrow 
Areopagus, 71 f. 

Theopompus, archon, 411 B.C., 90. 

Theorica, officers in charge of, 
elected by xtipoTovia, 1 10. Their 
duties, 120. 

Theramenes, leader of aristocra- 
tical party, 78. Character of, 
80. Leader of the Four Hun- 
dred, 89. Instrumental in over- 



throwing them, 90. Leader of 
moderate party after Aegospo- 
tami, 93. Opposes extreme pro- 
ceedings of the Thirty, 95 f. 
Executed, 98. 

Theseum, magistrates elected by 
lot in, 153. 

Theseus, the reforms of, the first 
change in Athenian constitution, 
105 ; the first step towards 
popular government, 172. 

Thesmothetae, origin of, 6. Resi- 
dence of, 7. Duties, 117, 122, 
128, 146 f. 

Thessalus, surname of Hegesi- 
stratus, son of Pisistratus, 46. 

Thirty, government of, established 
by Lysander, 93. Character of 
administration, 93 ff. Defeated 
at Munychia, 98. Expelled from 
power, ib. Excluded from am- 
nesty, and allowed to settle at 
Eleusis, loi. Their government 
the tenth change in Athenian 
constitution, 106. 

Tholus, residence of the prytanes, 

Thrasybulus, occupies Phyle and 
defeats army of the Thirty, 96. 

Prosecuted by Archinus for an 

illegal proposal, 103. 
Three Thousand, body of, under 

government of the Thirty, 96. 
Thucydides, leader of aristocrat- 

ical party, 77. 
Timonassa, of Argos, second wife 

of Pisistratus, 46. 
Timosthenes, archon, 478 B.C., 66. 
Tragedy, choregi appointed for, 

Tribes, four, in early constitutions, 

, ten, instituted by Cleis- 

thenes, 54. 
TpiTjpoirowi, 119. 
TpiTTves, in primitive constitution, 

23) 173 ; in Cleisthenean con- 
stitution, 55. 

Weights and measures, reformed 
by Solon, 27. Official superin- 
tendence of, 126. 

Widows and orphans, under guar- 
dianship of the archon, 142. 

Xanthippus, son 

ostracised, 61. 

Sfiiiov, 77. 
Xenaenetus, archon, 401 B.C. 

of Ariphron, 
Upoa-TaTTjs Tov